Provides for a requirement of due diligence as to new evidence regarding a filing for post conviction relief. (8/15/10)
Impact
The proposed amendment, effective August 15, 2010, is expected to impact the legal landscape surrounding post conviction relief significantly. By reinforcing the requirement of due diligence, the bill aims to reduce frivolous claims that do not meet the established criteria, thereby expediting the judicial process for genuine claims. This change will require that petitioners invest more effort in exploring potential evidence before filing for relief, which could lead to more thorough and justified applications.
Summary
Senate Bill 237 seeks to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure in Louisiana, specifically focusing on the requirements for filing applications for post conviction relief. The bill requires that any claims presented must demonstrate that the facts supporting the application either were not previously known to the petitioner or their attorney, and crucially, that these facts could not be discovered through due diligence. This bill aims to streamline the process of post conviction relief by ensuring that only valid claims based on newly discovered evidence are considered after a conviction has become final.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB237 appears to be generally supportive among legislators who believe that the bill addresses a necessary legal refinement in the context of criminal procedure. Advocates argue that the requirement for due diligence is a reasonable standard that will enhance the integrity of the post conviction relief process. However, there could be concerns among defenders of inmates' rights who might view the amendments as potentially restrictive, possibly making it harder for individuals to seek recourse if they are unable to meet the new stringent criteria.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding the bill include the implications of enforcing heightened standards for due diligence in post conviction claims. Opponents of such requirements may argue that they could unintentionally limit access to justice for wrongfully convicted individuals or those who may not have the resources to thoroughly investigate their cases before filing. The law could raise questions about the balance between preventing abuse of the legal process and ensuring fair access to post conviction remedies.