Relates to the admission of new DNA evidence to vacate a judgment

1 Co-sponsor

• José M. Serrano

Title of bill

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to vacating judgments based upon forensic DNA tests

Purpose

The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism by which an individual convicted of a crime by a guilty plea could move to vacate the conviction based on new evidence consisting of DNA test results discovered since entry of judgment.

Summary of provisions

Section 1 of the bill amends Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) Section 440.10 to provide that at any time after entry of judgment upon a guilty plea, the defendant may move to vacate such judgment upon the ground that new evidence consisting of DNA test results has been discovered since the entry of judgment.

Section 2 of the bill amends CPL §440.20 (1) to make conforming changes.

Section 3 of the bill amends CPL §440.30 (1-a) to provide the procedure by which a defendant may move to vacate a conviction or judgment based on a request for performance of forensic DNA testing.

Section 4 of the bill provides the effective date.

Justification

This is one of six bills that are based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Wrongful convictions of the New York State Bar Association. That Task Force was created in 2008, and examined 53 cases where a defendant was wrongfully convicted of a crime and later exonerated. Through this study, the Task Force identified what it found to be the causes of these mistakes. Its report was approved by the Bar Association in 2009, and this bill is intended to address one of the causes that were so identified.

National studies have concluded that post-conviction DNA testing must be available to those who may be wrongfully convicted, regardless of whether their conviction was the result of a trial verdict or a guilty plea, and notwithstanding a confession or a previous unfavorable test result. As The Justice Project has noted, " e xcluding defendants who confessed or pled guilty does not take into account evidence that many false confessions and even some plea bargains are obtained from innocent people." "Nearly a dozen of the more than 200 DNA exonerees in the United States initially pled guilty, and 50 of the first 200 purportedly confessed to crimes that they did not commit." As has now been well-established in various studies on the phenomenon of false confession, any people, particularly mentally and emotionally vulnerable populations, plead guilty even though they are innocent. Faced with a choice between a guilty plea or the prospect of a much higher sentence following a guilty verdict, and unaware of the possibility that scientific evidence can establish their innocence, they take what seems like the lesser of two bad alternatives.

Bad decisions should not irrevocably condemn those who are actually innocent. While New York's statute does not specifically address the availability of post conviction DNA testing for those who have pled guilty, New York appellate courts have construed the statute as foreclosing DNA testing after a guilty plea. People v. Byrdsong, 33A.D.3d175 (2d Dep't 2006), Iv denied 7 N.Y.3d 900(2006); People v. Lebron, 44 A.D.3d 310 (1st Dept 2007), Iv denied 9 N.Y.3d 1007 (2007); People v. Allen, 47 A.D. 3d 543 (1st Dep't 2008). This bill would overturn these decisions to ensure that such testing is available irrespective of whether the conviction was the result of a verdict or a plea.

Legislative history

New Bill.

Fiscal impact

To be determined.

Effective date

This act shall take effect immediately.