Test Drive Our New Site! We have some improvements in the works that we're excited for you to experience. Click here to try our new, faster, mobile friendly beta site. We will be maintaining our current version of the site thru the end of 2024, so you can switch back as our improvements continue.
Legislation Quick Search
10/19/2024 06:06 AM
Pennsylvania State Senate
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?SPick=20230&chamber=S&cosponId=39505
Share:
Home / Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

Subscribe to PaLegis Notifications
NEW!

Subscribe to receive notifications of new Co-Sponsorship Memos circulated

By Member | By Date | Keyword Search


Senate of Pennsylvania
Session of 2023 - 2024 Regular Session

MEMORANDUM

Posted: January 24, 2023 04:22 PM
From: Senator Vincent J. Hughes
To: All Senate members
Subject: Conviction Integrity Bill Package
 
In the near future, I plan to reintroduce my package of conviction integrity bills with some updates that will reduce the number of wrongful convictions in Pennsylvania and will address key areas that continue to be a source of injustice in our criminal justice system.

Over ten years ago, the Joint State Government Commission’s Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions issued its report and recommendations to address the miscarriages of justice caused by wrongful convictions. The Committee reported that “Since 1989, 34 states and the District of Columbia have been witness to 273 postconviction DNA exonerations. These exonerations represent cases in which the conviction has been indisputably determined to be wrong by continuing advances in the use of DNA science and evidence.” Today, that number has grown to 375. According to data from the Innocence Project, of those 375 exonerations 69 % involved mistaken eyewitness identification, 17% involved jailhouse informant testimony, and 28% involved false confession.

These exonerations challenge our long-accepted assumptions in the soundness of certain practices of the criminal justice system and cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitness identifications, confessions, and seemingly commonplaces practices within the adversarial legal system. However, we have the blueprints to correct these shortcomings.




Document #1

Introduced as SB715

Description: The first piece of legislation includes numerous procedural reforms that will improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification. These reforms include changes to lineup procedures to ensure more objective administration, requiring standard instructions be given to the eyewitness before the identification, requiring the eyewitness to provide a confidence statement that articulates the level of confidence in the identification made, and procedures for documenting the identification procedures. So far, 25 states have implemented similar reforms, including, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
 

Document #2

Introduced as SB716

Description: The second piece of legislation addresses the use of informant testimonies in any criminal proceeding or capital case. This legislation fills the gaps in current law, which currently provides no limit on the use of such evidence and fails to provide sufficient means to ensure reliability. The bill requires the prosecution to make certain disclosures, including any agreements that have been offered in return for the testimony. Additionally, the bill requires the court to hold a reliability hearing to determine if the informant’s testimony is reliable. The disclosure requirements and reliability hearing are consistent with existing state and federal law.
 
 

Document #3

Introduced as SB717

Description: The third piece of legislation establishes the Uniform Electronic Recordation of Custodial Interrogations Act, which requires law enforcement to electronically record a custodial interrogation when the interrogation relates to a crime of violence allegedly committed by an adult or a minor, unless a legitimate exception exists. This model legislation benefits both the innocent and law enforcement by deterring improper or coercive techniques, enhancing public confidence through transparency, and creating an undisputable account of what transpired during the interrogation. 30 states have already implemented custodial interrogation practices, including neighboring states of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.