The Innocence Project of Texas

Dear friends of the Innocence Project of Texas,

Here’s a status report on what’s happening with bills supported by the Innocence Project of Texas at the 81st Texas Legislature.

Senator Rodney Ellis and others have been proposing innocence-related legislation at the Texas capitol for nearly a decade, but I don’t think there’s ever been more momentum for reform than we’re seeing in 2009. Thanks to an amazing effort by many people, including our allies at the Justice Project and the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the incredibly high-impact lobby day with exonerees during the Timothy Cole hearing in February, many bills we support were filed at the Texas Legislature before last Friday’s bill filing deadline. Now that we know what legislation we’re supporting (including bill numbers, etc.), I wanted to give everybody an update regarding innocence-related reform bills we support:

• SB 115/HB 788/HB 498: Innocence commission (Ellis, Thompson, McLendon)
• SB 116/HB 4090: Recording interrogations (Ellis, Farrar)
• SB 117/HB 3583: Improving eyewitness ID procedures (Ellis, Gallego)
• SB 260: Requiring pretrial reliability hearing for informants (Ellis)
• SB 1681: Corroborating jailhouse informants (Hinojosa)
• SB 1976/HB 3579: Expanding post-conviction writ access to cases with new scientific evidence (Whitmire, Gallego)
• SB 2276 Disallowing the parole board from making rules penalizing claims of actual innocence (Ellis)
• SB 2014/HB 1736: Compensating the falsely convicted (Duncan, Anchia)

Collectively, this represents a significant reform package with good chances of passage. Of course, now begins the more difficult part as each bill works its way through the legislative process. Fewer than 20% of proposed bills pass each session at the Legislature, but innocence issues have a lot of momentum.

The committee process in both chambers is beginning nearly a month later this year than in previous sessions, resulting in a very compressed calendar. The policy-oriented Senate bills may be heard in committee as soon as Tuesday, March 31 in the Senate. The compensation bill will likely move first through the House. Here’s a brief run-down of the legislation we support:

SB 115/HB 788/HB 498: Innocence commission (Ellis, McLendon, Thompson)

The media and many at the capitol still consider this the signature bill of the innocence package. Last session, a version passed the Senate but died in the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Rep. McLendon has filed a slightly different bill from Rep. Thompson and Sen. Ellis. McLendon’s bill was heard last week in a House subcommittee and Thompson’s was heard by the same body Monday morning.

SB 117/HB 3583: Improving eyewitness ID procedures (Ellis, Gallego)

This is the legislation the opposition is most focused on, and it’s been the subject of intense negotiations. Many observers expect some version of it to pass. Rep. Gallego, who sponsored the bill up in the House, is chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee where many of the main, innocence-related policy bills will go. The Court of Criminal Appeals’ Criminal Justice Integrity Unit, on which IPOT boardmember Gary Udashen participated, urged the Legislature to make eyewitness ID reform its top innocence-related priority.

SB 116/HB 4090: Recording interrogations (Ellis, Farrar)

Aimed at preventing false confessions, we have excellent cases for promoting this: Most notably Ochoa/Danziger. Debate over this bill could end up being mostly about cost. I was happy Rep. Farrar filed the bill in the House at the last minute, so the bill has sponsors in both chambers.

SB 260: Requiring pretrial reliability hearing for jailhouse informants (Ellis)

This bill would require enhanced  pretrial disclosure by the state about jailhouse informants and a reliability hearing before their testimony could be used. A really strong bill. If you know of bad jailhouse snitch stories we could use at the hearing, let me know.

SB 1681: Corroborating jailhouse informants (Hinojosa)

This bill would require corroboration to obtain a conviction based on jailhouse informant testimony. This was a key recommendation of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

SB 1976/HB 3579: Expanding post-conviction writ access to cases with new scientific evidence (Whitmire, Gallego)

This bill would expand post-conviction innocence writ access beyond DNA cases to cases where new scientific evidence unavailable at the time of trial is available to prove innocence. We’re hoping this is a way to get bad arson cases and other false convictions based on debunked or outdated forensics back into court on actual innocence claims. (N.b. The language will likely be changed; it appears Legislative Council made a drafting error that needs to be clarified.) For this bill, the two relevant committee chairmen are the bill sponsors – John Whitmire in the Senate and Pete Gallego in the House. That gives this legislation a strong foundation and a good chance of passing.

SB 2276 Disallowing the parole board from penalizing claims of innocence (Ellis)

This legislation would disallow the parole board from having any “rule, policy or practice” that would require someone who claimed innocence at trial and throughout the appellate process from being denied parole because they refuse to accept responsibility for the offense for which they were convicted. Exactly this happened to many Texas exonerees and IPOT can provide compelling exoneree testimony for the committee.

SB 2014/HB 1736: Compensating the falsely convicted (Duncan, Anchia)

The compensation bill, which was filed with bipartisan support in both chambers, would pay $80K per year served in an upfront payment, and another $80K per year in an annuity paid out over time. It will also include provisions for posthumous compensation in cases like Timothy Cole’s.

So this is the foundation for the proactive part of our legislative session. In addition, some members have promoted other good bills we will support. (For example, I testified last week on behalf of IPOT in favor of HB 293 by Dutton which would require expunction of records in cases where the person was pardoned, acquitted, or the case is dismissed.) But these will be the main bills we’re watching.

Congratulations to everyone supporting innocence reforms for a promising start to the 81st Texas legislative session. The next 60 days will tell the tale and I’ll be sending out updates as we go along.

Best regards,

Scott Henson
Policy Director, Innocence Project of Texas

Trackback URI | Comments RSS