BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1342|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1342
Author: Burton (D), et al
Amended: 4/25/00
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/11/00
AYES: Vasconcellos, Burton, McPherson, Polanco, Rainey
NOT VOTING: Johnston
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 5/25/00
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
SUBJECT : Forensic testing: post conviction
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill creates a procedure for the
post-conviction testing of DNA evidence for defendants who
did not have that technology available at the time of trial
and where identity was a significant issue that resulted in
his or her conviction.
ANALYSIS : Existing law sets forth when a defendant may
appeal a conviction.
This bill provides that a defendant who was convicted may
make a written motion before the trial court for the
performance of forensic DNA testing on evidence that is
related to the charges that resulted in his or her
CONTINUED
SB 1342
Page
2
conviction but which was not tested because either the
evidence or the technology was not available at the time of
the trial.
This bill provides that the motion requires notice upon the
Attorney General and the district attorney of the county of
conviction 30 days prior to the hearing.
This bill provides that the motion shall be heard by the
judge who conducted the trial unless the prescribing judge
determines that judge is unavailable.
This bill provides that the court shall allow the testing
if the defendant presents a prima facie case that identity
was a significant issue that resulted in his or her
conviction and the court finds all of the following:
1.The result of the testing has the scientific potential to
produce new, noncumulative evidence that is material and
relevant to the defendant's assertion of innocence.
2.The testing requested employs a method generally accepted
within the relevant scientific community.
3.The evidence to be tested is available and in a condition
that would permit the DNA testing requested in the
motion.
4.The evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of
custody sufficient to establish it has not been
substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered in
material aspect.
This bill provides that if know to the defendant, or his or
her counsel, the motion shall identify the evidence subject
to the testing and the specific type of testing that is
required.
This bill provides that at any time the court may appoint
counsel for an indigent applicant under this section.
The bill provides that if the motion is granted, the
testing shall be conducted at a mutually agreed upon lab.
SB 1342
Page
3
The bill provides that if the results shall be disclosed to
both the person filing the motion and to the district
attorney and either party can request the production of the
underlying data and notes.
This bill provides that the cost of the DNA testing shall
be borne by the state if the applicant is indigent.
This bill provides that evidence samples containing
biological material are exempt from any law requiring the
disclosure of the information to the public or the return
of biological specimens.
This bill provides that any biological material secured in
connection with a criminal case shall be preserved as long
as the person remains incarcerated unless the governmental
entity notifies specified persons of their intent to
destroy the material and none of those notified file a
request to have the material tested within 180 days of the
notice.
Background
At the Innocence Project run by attorneys Peter Neufeld and
Barry Scheck at Cardoza Law School in Manhattan, second and
third year law students evaluate cases from all over the
country to determine for which cases they will seek
post-conviction DNA testing. As of January 2000 the
Project has "played a role in thirty-nine exonerations."
(Boyer, Peter J. "Annals of Justice: DNA on Trial" New
Yorker January 17, 2000 page 42) In order to qualify for
help by the Innocence Project the case had to have
available biological material and "the defense had to have
been that the accused had been wrongly identified by the
victim." (Id. at 45)
In California there is no right to post-conviction
discovery in criminal cases nor is there a set procedure
for letting the courts evaluate whether a defendant should
have access to post-conviction testing of DNA. As a
result, in California in the cases where DNA has been
tested and an inmate has been released the inmate has had
to convince the prosecutor in the original case to allow
DNA testing. Of the 70 cases in the United States that
SB 1342
Page
4
have been vacated on the basis of DNA testing, 4 were in
California.
When discussing the case of Herman Atkins originally
prosecuted in Riverside County and recently released from
prison, Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project stated
"California currently lacks a statute giving inmates the
right to post-conviction DNA testing . . . As a result an
inmate is at the mercy of the good-will of the prosecutor."
( Los Angeles Times , February 9, 2000, Section A, Page 10)
According to the article, a motion by the Innocent Project
stated that "the original prosecutor in the case resisted
testing for several years." (Id.) Upon his release he had
been in prison for 12 years and it had taken him "three
years to get a judge to agree to DNA testing of the
biological evidence recovered from the victim, who had
fingered Atkins as her attacker." ( USA Today , February 29,
2000)
At this time only New York and Illinois have statutes
providing for post-conviction testing in certain cases.
Currently, in addition to this legislation there is federal
legislation proposed, as well as legislation proposed in
other states.
Federal Legislation
On February 10, 2000 Senate Bill 2073 was introduced by
Senators Leahy, Levin, Feingold, Moynihan and Akaka in the
U.S. Senate. This bill provides, in part for
post-conviction DNA testing of defendants. The bill
provides that if it passes states will be required to make
DNA testing available to convicted persons to the same
extent that it requires.
As currently drafted, the federal legislation is broader
than this bill. While this bill limits testing to cases
where the issue was innocence, the federal legislation
provides that any person in custody may apply for DNA
testing of any biological evidence that is related to the
investigation or prosecution that resulted in judgment.
The federal bill does not limit the testing to cases where
identity was an issue and thus could apply to many more
cases than this legislation.
SB 1342
Page
5
It also requires that the evidence be in the actual or
constructive possession of the government and that it not
have previously been tested for DNA unless it can be
subjected to retesting with a new DNA technique.
The federal legislation also requires that the cost of the
testing be borne by the Government and allows the court to
appoint counsel. The federal legislation also has the
preservation of evidence language upon which the language
in this bill was based.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2000-01 2001-02
2002-03 Fund
DNA testing Unknown costs, probably in
excess of General
$150 annually and
potentially significant
Courts Unknown costs, probably
not substantial General
Appointed counsel Unknown costs, potentially
reimbursable Local
Storage of evidence Unknown increased mandated,
potentially Local
reimbursable costs
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/25/00)
Crime Victims United of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
SB 1342
Page
6
"In its report to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence states:
'The advent of DNA testing raises the question of
whether a different balance should be struck
regarding the right to postconviction relief. The
probative value of DNA testing has been steadily
increasing as technological advances and growing
databases expand the ability to identify perpetrators
and eliminate suspects. The strong presumption that
verdicts are correct, one of the underpinnings of
restrictions on postconviction relief, has been
weakened by the growing number of convictions that
have been vacated because of exclusionary DNA
results. ( Postconviction DNA Testing:
Recommendations for Handling Requests , National
Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, National
Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,
September 1999, p. xiv.)'
"Based on research conducted by the National Institute
of Justice, since U.S. courts began allowing DNA
evidence in 1987, 70 individuals have been freed because
of DNA tests that conclusively proved their innocence.
At least nine were on death row, and one was just five
days from being executed. At the same time, the real
perpetrators were not brought to justice for those
crimes. Of the 70 cases nationally, 4 were in
California where the average term served was just over
10 years before being exonerated. Although the use of
DNA evidence in criminal proceedings, where appropriate,
is becoming as commonplace as fingerprinting, such
evidence was not available to others who are currently
incarcerated.
"A 1995 study of forensic laboratories that conduct DNA
testing found that in roughly 23 percent of cases, DNA
test results excluded the primary suspects. In the cases
reported by the FBI as part of this study, DNA test
results excluded 20 percent of suspects, and only 60
percent matched the primary suspect. Without these test
results, many of these suspects quite possibly would have
been tried and convicted based on other faulty evidence,
SB 1342
Page
7
mistaken eyewitness identification, or even misconduct or
incompetence on the part the attorneys involved in the
cases.
"At an annual cost of more than $25,000 per inmate-not to
mention trial costs and the unjust deprivation of an
individual's freedom-we simply cannot afford to
incarcerate the innocent. The imprisonment costs alone
in those four California cases totaled more than $1.2
million. Yet the cost to perform DNA tests in those four
cases was probably less than $20,000, based on the
average cost of a test."
RJG:cm 5/26/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****