Provides a non-DNA-based factually innocent standard for seeking post conviction relief. (8/1/20)
Impact
This legislation significantly impacts existing state laws governing post-conviction relief. Prior to SB360, Louisiana law did not accommodate claims of factual innocence that did not rely on DNA evidence. This change modifies the Code of Criminal Procedure to include a standardized process for these types of claims, allowing for a reevaluation of cases that may have been previously dismissed based on a lack of DNA evidence. It is expected to affect various aspects of the criminal justice system, including how new evidence is treated and the procedural pathways for prisoners seeking relief.
Summary
Senate Bill 360 establishes a non-DNA-based factual innocence standard for petitions seeking post-conviction relief in Louisiana. The bill introduces a framework where individuals can assert factual innocence claims based on new evidence that was not available during their original trials. This new provision allows for greater access to justice for individuals who may have been wrongfully convicted, ensuring that even without DNA evidence, they can challenge their convictions if credible evidence of innocence arises.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB360 is largely positive among advocates for criminal justice reform, who believe that the bill represents a significant step towards rectifying wrongful convictions. Supporters argue that it creates a more just legal system and emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in ensuring the integrity of convictions. However, there are concerns from some legal practitioners about the potential increase in the number of applications for post-conviction relief and the implications for court resources and procedures.
Contention
A key point of contention regarding SB360 revolves around the burden of proof for establishing factual innocence. The bill requires that petitioners present new, material, and reliable evidence that was not previously known, which some critics argue could be a high threshold to meet. Additionally, the process for responding to claims may strain judicial resources, raising concerns about potential delays in the legal system. Moreover, there are discussions about how effective the bill will be in practice, particularly regarding the types of evidence that will be accepted and the legal interpretations of 'factual innocence.'