BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 694|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 694
Author: Leno (D)
Introduced:2/27/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: New evidence: habeas corpus: motion to vacate
judgment: indemnity
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill allows the granting of a habeas corpus
petition based on new evidence which "raises a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if a new trial were granted."
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
SB 694
Page 2
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. (Penal Code § 1473(a).)
2)States that 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. (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 in a contested proceeding, if a court grans 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 California
Crime Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board 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. (Penal Code §
1485.55(a))
4)Provides that "new evidence" means evidence that was not
available or knows at the time of trial that completely
SB 694
Page 3
undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to
innocence. (Penal Code § 1485.55(b))
This bill:
1)Adds, as grounds for a writ of habeas corpus, new evidence
exists which would raise a reasonable probability of a
different outcome if a new trial were granted.
2)Changes that standard from "points unerringly to innocence' to
"raises a possibility of a different outcome if a new trial
were granted."
3)Changes that standard from "undermines the prosecution case
and points unerringly to innocence' to "raises a possibility
of a different outcome if a new trial were granted."
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
SB 694
Page 4
prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus.
Reasonable probability 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 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 which would raise a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if a new trial were granted.
The reasonable probability standard the same standard that is
used in most other states and in California is used for cases
of: ineffective assistance of counsel; false evidence; and,
prosecutorial misconduct.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potential future increase in General Fund appropriations for
payment of approved claims for compensation to exonerees
potentially in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of
dollars in any one year for: 1) new cases granted a writ of
habeas corpus on the grounds of new evidence, as defined; 2)
new cases in which a court vacates judgment on the basis of
the revised definition of new evidence; and, 3) claims that
otherwise would not have been paid under the higher standard
for a court finding and subject to a Board hearing. Annual
costs would vary based on the number of claims filed and the
duration of unlawful imprisonment specific to each individual.
Since 2002, 14 claims have been paid totaling $5.3 million,
ranging in amount from $17,000 to $757,000, with an average
compensation amount of $379,000. Three claims totaling about
$1 million are pending legislative approval.
Potentially significant increase in Attorney General workload
(General Fund) to the extent a greater number of claims
SB 694
Page 5
meeting the lower standard of "reasonable probability" result
in additional petitions granted. Resources could potentially
be required for post-verdict investigations, and to litigate
retrials, appeals, and collateral challenges.
No significant workload impact to the Board. Potential
increases in the number of claims submitted for review are
estimated to be offset in whole or in part by the reduced
workload resulting from fewer required hearings in order to
recommend an appropriation for claims prospectively.
Potential future cost savings (General Fund) in averted
incarceration of an unknown, but potentially significant
amount to the extent future writs of habeas corpus are
granted.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/29/15)
ACLU
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Innocence Project
California Public Defenders Association
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Innocence Project
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Northern California Innocence Project
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/29/15)
California District Attorneys Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Judicial Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
In support the ACLU notes that:
SB 694
Page 6
SB 694 would incorporate into California law a
standard of proof that is in alignment with almost all
other states. SB 694 will allow a wrongfully convicted
person to receive a new trial if he or she presents
the reviewing court with evidence that is of such a
decisive value and force that there is a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if a new trial were
granted. This standard brings the actual innocence
claim into alignment with other post-conviction
remedies for established constitutional violations,
including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
prosecutorial misconduct, and false evidence.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
The California District Attorneys Association opposes this bill
stating:
The proposed standard allows for a new trial when
there is merely a reasonable probability that the
outcome would be different because of newly discovered
evidence. This standard is even less than a
preponderance of the evidence, and thus is
ridiculously low in this context. The proposed
standard is currently mandated by the United States
Constitution only when there is a constitutionality
defective trial because of ineffective assistance of
counsel or Brady error for example. (emphasis in
original)
In contrast, SB 694 proposes to use the standard for
relief designed to remedy a constitutionally defective
trial, even though the trial was fair. Simply put, the
finality of judgments is sacrificed, and the meaning
of a guilty verdict is redefined for the public,
victims, and the justice system to mean guilty unless
the defendant can produce newly discovered evidence
with less than fifty percent chance of changing the
outcome. The standard is no longer that the defendant
appears to be innocent, but rather, even though the
defendant is more likely guilty than not, the
defendant gets a new trial.
SB 694
Page 7
When habeas relief is granted years after a conviction
by trial, it is frequently not possible to retry the
defendant due to passage of time. Thus the effect of
SB 694 is to "exonerate" convicted individuals who
have less than fifty percent chance of winning a new
trial.
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
5/30/15 17:40:44
**** END ****