Bills would expand eligible evidence

Incarcerated individuals would have more options to request new trials under two bills heard by the Judiciary Committee Jan. 30. Both were introduced by Lincoln Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks.

Currently, motions may be filed only within three years of a verdict when based on discovery of new non-DNA evidence. LB244 would allow motions for new trials to be filed whenever new non-DNA evidence is discovered.

From 1989 to 2012, Pansing Brooks said, 848 wrongly convicted people were exonerated in the U.S; three-fourths of them spent more than five years in prison.

Pansing Brooks said Nebraska has a moral duty to avoid wrongfully incarcerating people. Allowing judges to consider new non-DNA evidence would lead to prosecution of those who are actually guilty and would protect the state from costly litigation caused by wrongful incarceration.

“The placement of an arbitrary time limit does not promote the interest of justice,” she said.

Tracy Hightower-Henne, executive director of the Nebraska Innocence Project, testified in support of the bill. She said the current three-year time limit keeps judges from looking at new evidence no matter how much merit it has.

Amy Miller of American Civil Liberties Union Nebraska also spoke in favor of the bill, saying courts would not see a flood of motions to revisit cases because of the high standards set by the Nebraska Supreme Court regarding newly discovered evidence.

LB245, the second bill considered, would allow convicts to request DNA testing of previously tested material if current technology could provide more accurate or probative results.

Current law requires convicts who want material retested to prove to courts that such forensic testing did not exist at the time of the trial.

Pansing Brooks said the bill would clarify language in the Nebraska DNA Testing Act to give more options to people who feel they were wrongly convicted. Citing the wrongful convictions of six Nebraskans for the 1985 murder of Helen Wilson in Beatrice, Pansing Brooks said newer forensic techniques could prevent similar mistakes.

“We should take advantage of any opportunity to identify any miscarriage of justice,” she said.

Michelle Feldman of the National Innocence Project testified in favor of the bill, saying it would ensure DNA testing could be used in cases where it was not yet available or not considered.

Ada JoAnn Taylor, one of those exonerated by DNA evidence in Wilson’s death, called herself a tragic and triumphant example of the benefits of forensic science.

“My case shows that sometimes the criminal justice system gets it wrong,” she said.

No one spoke in opposition to the bills and the committee took no immediate action on them.