BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1342
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 23, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Carole Migden, Chairwoman
SB 1342 (Burton) - As Amended: August 14, 2000
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the court to order DNA testing on evidence
relevant to the conviction of a criminal defendant under
specified conditions, and requires the appropriate governmental
entity to preserve any biological material secured in a
criminal case, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a person convicted of a felony, who is currently
imprisoned, to make a motion for DNA testing. The motion must
be verified under penalty of perjury and must explain: (a) why
the identity of the applicant is a significant issue and (b)
how the DNA test would raise a reasonable probability that the
verdict would have been more favorable had the test been
available at trial.
2)Requires that notice of the motion be served on the Attorney
General (A.G.) and the D.A. in the county of conviction and
that the hearing be conducted by the judge who presided over
the trial unless that judge is unavailable. Reply briefs must
be filed within 60 days.
3)Requires the court to grant a hearing on the motion if the
defendant presents a prima facie (at first sight) case that
identity was a significant issue in the case, and the court
finds: (a) the testing has the potential to produce new
evidence that could establish the defendant's innocence; (b)
the evidence to be tested is available and in condition for
DNA testing; (c) the evidence to be tested has been subject to
an appropriate chain of custody, and (d) the evidence was not
previously subjected to DNA testing.
SB 1342
Page 2
4)Provides that an order granting or denying DNA testing under
this section is not appealable and subject to review only via
petition for writ of mandate, as specified.
5) Requires court-ordered DNA testing to be done "as soon as
practicable," though a court may expedite processing in the
interest of justice.
6)Requires that the cost of DNA testing be covered by the state,
or by the applicant if the court finds the applicant is not
indigent and has the ability to pay and states legislative
intent to appropriate funds for this purpose.
7)Requires the appropriate governmental entity to preserve any
biological material secured in connection with a criminal case
for as long as the person remains incarcerated in
connection with the case. (The government entity makes the
determination of whether evidence contains biological
material, and how the evidence should be maintained.)
Biological evidence may be disposed, however, if: (a) the
governmental entity notifies the convicted person, any counsel
of record, the district attorney in the county of conviction,
and the A.G.; (b) within 90 days of the notice to dispose, no
person applies for an order requiring DNA testing on the
evidence to be destroyed, no one requests the evidence be
preserved pending a application for testing within 180 days,
and no one files a declaration of innocence under penalty of
perjury; and (c) no other provision of law requires the
evidence be preserved.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown annual GF costs to the DOJ for DNA testing. If, for
example 50 persons filed successful testing motions, the
actual cost of testing would be about $200,000, based on
average cost of $4,000 per case.
According to Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck of the Innocence
Project in Michigan, which has sought post-conviction DNA
testing in numerous cases, contributing to 39 exonerations,
the actual cost of DNA analysis cost is $3,000 to $4,000 per
case when contracted out to a private lab. Neufeld contends
that, absent labor costs, the actual cost is closer to $500.
SB 1342
Page 3
2)In addition to the cost of testing, the DOJ could require
additional staff and equipment, potentially in the range of
$2 million annually, based on similar staff and equipment cost
estimates provided by DOJ for SB 1818 (Speier), which
establishes a DNA data bank for missing persons.
3)Unknown, potentially significant reimbursable local costs for
evidence storage. Sheriff's Offices and Police Departments
differ in how long they store evidence, but most do not store
evidence after appeals have been exhausted. By mandating
storage, this bill creates annual costs that could be in the
range of $1 million. For example, if L.A. City and County each
have to purchase refrigeration units for biological evidence
and rent additional storage facilities, the annual cost could
exceed $200,000. Extrapolating statewide, the cost could reach
$1 million since individual departments maintain their own
facilities.
4)Also unknown costs to DOJ - likely in the range of $100,000 -
for evidence storage to the extent DOJ stores evidence for
smaller entities.
5)Minor costs to trial courts to hear motions.
6)Unknown costs to DOJ and trial courts for additional habeas
writs to the extent persons receiving inconclusive tests
pursue new trials.
7)Unknown savings to the extent persons are exonerated and freed
from prison. For example, if two defendants were released from
prison, who would otherwise serve an additional 10 years each,
the cumulative GF savings would be almost $500,000, offset by
any restitution paid by the state for wrongful incarceration.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . California has no right to post-conviction
discovery in criminal cases, nor is there a procedure for
evaluating whether a defendant should have access to
post-conviction DNA testing. As a result, in 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 70 cases in the U.S. that have been
vacated on the basis of DNA testing, four were in California.
SB 1342
Page 4
(At this time, only New York and Illinois have statutes
providing for post-conviction testing in certain cases.
Federal legislation has been proposed, and other states are
proposing legislation.)
According to the author, "Innocent people should not serve
time or be executed for crimes they did not commit. As long as
an innocent person is incarcerated for a crime he or she did
not commit, the guilty party remains at-large, a danger to
society and unpunished."
1)Suggested amendments .
a) Add a general mandate disclaimer regarding evidence
storage.
b) Sunset the evidence storage provisions after two years.
c) Make reference to the 2001-02 state budget in terms of
the intent to seek an appropriation for DNA testing.
1)There is no known opposition to this measure . The DOJ has been
working with the author to address its concerns. The August 14
version of the bill appears to address the issues raised by
the DOJ up to this point.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916)319-2081