BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1698
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2000
Chief Counsel: Bruce E. Chan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
SB 1698 (Hayden) - As Introduced: February 22, 2000
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUMMARY : Provides that a convicted person's declaration of
innocence of wrongdoing shall not be considered an aggravating
factor indicating lack of remorse in the determination of an
appropriate sentence for that person. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings that:
a)The criminal justice system must preserve the image and
reality of fairness to all, especially for those who have
experienced disadvantage for reasons of discrimination or
poverty.
b)It is vital to eliminate any incentives or pressures that
may be used to make a defendant plead guilty to a charge
when the defendant believes that he or she is innocent.
c)It is unfair to consider a convicted defendant's continued
declaration of innocence as evidence of lack of remorse in
determining an appropriate sentence.
d)California Rules of Court allow a defendant's refusal to
express remorse or acknowledge wrongdoing
to be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing a
convicted individual.
e)A defendant's refusal to express remorse or acknowledge
wrongdoing should not be considered to be an aggravating
factor in sentencing a convicted person.
2)Provides that a convicted person's declaration of innocence of
wrongdoing shall not be considered an aggravating factor
SB 1698
Page 2
indicating lack of remorse in the determination of an
appropriate sentence for that person. The Judicial Council
shall amend the Rules of Court to be consistent with the
previous statement.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that among the criteria affecting the decision to
grant or deny probation is "whether the defendant is
remorseful." (California Rules of Court, Rule 414(b)(7).)
2)Provides that circumstances in mitigation for sentencing a
defendant include "the defendant voluntarily acknowledged
wrongdoing prior to arrest or at an early stage of the
criminal process." (California Rules of Court, Rule
423(b)(3).)
3)Provides that criteria affecting the decision to impose
consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences include any
circumstance in aggravation or mitigation. (California Rules
of Court, Rule 425(b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Los Angeles
Police Department's "Rampart scandal" has placed a spotlight
on an unfortunate but not-so-unusual problem - there are
built-in incentives in our criminal justice system for
defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.
This bill attempts to remove one of these incentives.
California Rules of Court 414, 423 and 425 allow a defendant's
refusal to express remorse or refusal to acknowledge
wrongdoing to be considered a factor of aggravation at
sentencing. Yet, wrongly convicted defendants have received
harsher sentences because they have maintained their
innocence.
"A fundamental function of our criminal justice system is to
determine who is guilty and who is not. Doing so relies
almost entirely on the testimony and other evidence brought
into court by police officers and investigators. So, it is
not surprising that the task of determining innocence or guilt
is made much more difficult when police plant evidence and lie
SB 1698
Page 3
in court, as illustrated in the unfolding Rampart scandal
where anti-gang officers sometimes shot or beat their victims
and then framed them. Yet, changes in state law in recent
years have made it more difficult for defense lawyers to test
the credibility of evidence gathered by police. For instance,
eyewitnesses no longer have to testify at preliminary
hearings. They are replaced by police officers that are
allowed to give hearsay testimony. The defense can no longer
gauge the strength of prosecution witnesses - therefore the
strength of the prosecution case - until trial. At the same
time, harsher sentencing laws, such as three strikes, have
significantly raised the stakes of going to trial. The result
is a system with incentives for a defendant to 'plead out' to
a lesser crime and sentence, even if he or she knows fully
well that they are not guilty. After all, going to trial
where conviction is almost certain would no doubt result in a
much stiffer sentence. Of the many convictions overturned as
a result of the Rampart scandal, most of the defendants
pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit."
2)Should This Bill Be Limited To Instances Where The Accused Was
Convicted After A Trial: It is well established that whether
a defendant is remorseful is a proper consideration with
respect to probation. Indeed, it is a factor in mitigation
for purposes of sentencing if the defendant voluntarily
acknowledged wrongdoing prior to arrest or at an early stage
of the criminal process. At the same time, the "lack of
remorse may be used as a factor to aggravate?unless the
defendant has denied guilt and the evidence of guilt is
conflicting" (citation omitted). ( People v. Leung (1992) 5
Cal.App. 4th 482, 507.) If a defendant pleads guilty,
existing law permits the court to appropriately consider the
presence or absence of remorse at the time of sentencing.
A defendant who is convicted after a trial presents a different
situation. If he or she elects to exercise the constitutional
right to a trial by jury and is subsequently convicted, does
the fact that the defendant declined an offer to admit guilt
before trial show a lack of remorse? Similarly, if the
defendant testified and denied committing the offense, should
a probation officer or a judge view any testimony that is
contrary to that of the complaining witness as proving a lack
of remorse? Perhaps the author could address the concerns of
the opponents of this bill if it was limited to a defendant
who is convicted after a trial.
SB 1698
Page 4
3)Statement In Support: The Los Angeles County Public Defender
states, "SB 1698 redresses a particularly pernicious and
perplexing problem that occurs when an innocent person is
convicted. Under the current Rules of Court, refusal to
express remorse or acknowledge wrongdoing in such a lamentable
situation may be considered an aggravating circumstance
supporting a more punitive sentencing choice. SB 1698 would
leave intact the Rules of Court that permit a court to view
early acknowledgement of responsibility to be a mitigating
factor in selecting an appropriate sentence. Consequently,
the positive value of accountability would be preserved yet
the unfair negative inference inflicted on innocents who are
steadfast in declining to falsely admit guilt would be
eliminated."
4)Statement In Opposition: The California District Attorneys
Association (CDAA) states, "Determining the appropriate
punishment for a defendant convicted of a crime, whether by a
plea or by verdict, is a solemn and profoundly important
function of the judicial system. Beyond the circumstances of
the crime and the criminal history of the defendant, a
fundamental consideration is the attitude of the defendant
toward the crime he or she has committed. Whether the
criminal is remorseful or whether he or she continues to deny
wrongdoing even after having been convicted, has long been
given great weight in meting out a just punishment. SB 1698
would artificially and inappropriately limit consideration of
whether the defendant has taken a critical first step toward
rehabilitation by acknowledging wrongdoing.
"CDAA recognizes that this legislation stems from the unfolding
tragedy of the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles and respects
your profound concern for what transpired. Nevertheless, no
matter how well-intentioned, this legislation is unduly
restrictive. Courts would be unable to consider the fact that
a defendant demonstrates absolutely no remorse for a heinous
crime they have committed simply because the defendant
continues to claim he is innocent. This potentially could
include defendants committing hate crimes who, even though
they committed a murder or an arson, deny any wrongdoing
because they believe their actions justified."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 1698
Page 5
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Los Angeles County Public Defender
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Crime Victims United of California
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744