BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1342
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1342 (Burton)
As Amended August 14, 2000
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :40-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Washington, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner, |
| |Firebaugh, Keeley, Oller, | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| |Romero | |Kuehl, Papan, Romero, |
| | | |Shelley, Thomson, Wesson, |
| | | |Wiggins, Wright |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Campbell, Ackerman, |
| | | |Ashburn, Brewer, |
| | | |Maldonado, Zettel |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the court to grant a motion for the
performance of DNA testing under specified conditions for any
person convicted of a felony currently serving a term of
imprisonment, and requires the appropriate governmental entity
to preserve any biological material secured in a criminal case
as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a person convicted of a felony and currently
serving a term of imprisonment may make a written motion
verified under penalty of perjury before the trial court which
entered the conviction for performance of DNA testing.
2)Requires that the motion for DNA testing explain why identity
was or should have been an issue in the case, how the
requested testing would raise a reasonable probability that
that there would have been a more favorable verdict if the
results of DNA testing were available at the trial, and
identify the material to be tested and the specific type of
DNA testing sought.
3)Requires that a notice of the hearing be served on the
Attorney General (AG), the district attorney (DA)in the county
of conviction and, if known, the governmental agency or
SB 1342
Page 2
laboratory holding the evidence, and requires that responses
be filed within 60 days of service.
4)Allows the court discretion to grant a hearing on the motion,
and requires that the motion be heard by the judge that
conducted the trial, unless the presiding judge determines
that judge is unavailable.
5)Requires the court to appoint counsel for an indigent,
convicted person.
6)States the court shall grant the hearing on the motion for DNA
testing if all of the following has been established:
a) The evidence to be tested is available and in a
condition that would permit DNA testing requested in the
motion;
b) 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 any
material aspect;
c) The identity of the defendant was or should have been a
significant issue in the case;
d) The convicted person has made a prima facie showing that
the evidence sought to be tested is s material to the issue
of the convicted person's identity as the perpetrator or
accomplice to the crime or enhancement which resulted in
the conviction or sentence;
e) The requested DNA testing results would raise a
reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence,
the defendant's verdict or sentence or would have been more
favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available
at the time of conviction. The court in it's discretion
may consider any evidence whether or not it was introduced
at the trial;
f) The evidence sought to be tested either:
i) Was not tested previously, or,
ii) Was tested previously, but the requested DNA test
SB 1342
Page 3
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.
g) The testing requested employs a method generally
accepted within the scientific community; and,
h) The motion is not made solely for the purpose of delay.
7)Requires that the testing be conducted by a laboratory
mutually agreeable to the DA or AG, as specified, and the
person filing the motion, and if the parties cannot agree, the
court's order shall designate a laboratory.
8)Requires that the results of any testing ordered be fully
disclosed to each of the parties. If requested by either
party, the court shall order production of the underlying data
and notes.
9)Provides that the cost of DNA testing shall be borne by the
State or by the applicant if the court finds that the
applicant is not indigent and has the ability to pay, and it
is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds for this
purpose.
10)Provides that any order granting or denying a motion for DNA
testing shall not be appealable, and shall be reviewable only
through petition for writ of mandate or prohibition as
specified.
11)Requires the appropriate governmental entity to preserve any
biological material secured in connection with a criminal case
for the period of time that any person remains incarcerated in
connection with the case, and the governmental entity shall
have the discretion to determine how that evidence is
retained, as long as it is retained in a condition suitable
for DNA testing.
12)Allows a governmental entity may destroy biological materials
before the expiration date of the following conditions are
met:
a) The governmental entity notifies the person who remains
incarcerated in connection with the case, any counsel of
SB 1342
Page 4
record, the public defender and the district attorney in
the county of conviction and the AG of it's intention to
dispose of the material; and,
b) The entity does not receive within 90 days of the notice
any of the following:
i) A motion requesting that DNA testing be performed,
which allows that the material sought to be tested only
be retained until such time as the court issues a final
order;
ii) A request under penalty of perjury that the material
not be destroyed because a motion for DNA testing will be
filed within 180 days, and a motion is in fact filed
within that time period; or,
iii) A declaration of innocence under penalty of perjury
filed with the court within 180 days of the judgment of
conviction or before July 1, 2001, whichever is later,
however the court shall permit the destruction of the
evidence upon a showing that the declaration is false or
that there is no issue of identity which would be
affected by future testing.
13)States that this section shall become inoperative on January
1, 2003 and is repealed as of that date unless a later enacted
statute extends or deletes this provision.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)Unknown annual General Fund (GF) costs to the Department of
Justice (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 5
2)In addition to the cost of testing, 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 Los Angeles 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 : According to the author, "This bill would allow a
convicted defendant to make a motion before the trial court for
DNA testing that was not available at trial because the evidence
or the testing technology was not available to the defendant.
California has no statute or case law that authorizes such
testing. This bill balances the need for discovering the truth
with procedural fairness and practicality. It does not allow
DNA testing in every case - only where the identity of the
accused was a significant issue at trial, and the court finds,
among other things, that the result of the testing will produce
SB 1342
Page 6
new evidence that is material and relevant to the defendant's
assertion of innocence. The bill also provides safeguards to
ensure that the evidence is available and reliable.
"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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a more
comprehensive discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0006676