California Assembly Bill AB679

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/21
• Refer: 2/25/21
• Report Pass: 4/7/21
• Refer: 4/8/21
• Report Pass: 4/14/21
• Refer: 4/14/21
• Report Pass: 4/28/21
• Failed: 2/1/22

Caption

Criminal trials: testimony of in-custody informants.

Impact

The bill’s impact on state laws is significant, as it seeks to reform how informant testimonies are treated in criminal trials to prevent potential abuse. Under the new provisions, testimony by in-custody informants would not be admissible, except in specific cases where the testimony relates to a crime occurring in a correctional facility or operates under stringent law enforcement procedures. This could lead to a substantial change in prosecutorial evidence strategies and emphasize the protection of defendants’ rights during custodial interrogations.

Summary

Assembly Bill 679 addresses the admissibility of testimony from in-custody informants in criminal trials. The bill proposes to repeal and add section 1111.5 of the Penal Code, which currently restricts the admissibility of uncorroborated testimony from such informants. Under the existing law, a jury or judge is prohibited from convicting a defendant based solely on uncorroborated testimony from an in-custody informant, who is defined as someone whose testimony is based on statements made by the defendant while both were in custody. This legislation changes the trajectory by making such testimony inadmissible as evidence, with certain exceptions defined in the bill.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 679 appears to be mixed. Supporters, including certain advocacy groups, argue that the bill enhances the rights of defendants and protects against wrongful convictions based on unreliable informant testimony. They underscore that this measure helps ensure fair trials. Conversely, opponents may view the bill as a reduction of resources for law enforcement in gathering evidence, potentially complicating prosecutions, especially in cases where corroborative evidence is scarce.

Contention

Notable points of contention arise regarding the bill's implications for law enforcement practices. Some critics are concerned that it may inadvertently shield guilty parties by limiting the tools available to prosecutors. The bill is seen as a balancing act between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety, highlighting ongoing debates about the efficacy and ethics of using informant testimonies in criminal proceedings.