Writ of actual innocence; based on nonbiological evidence, additional petitions allowed. (SB171)
Introduced By
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Writ of actual innocence based on nonbiological evidence; additional petitions allowed. Removes the limitation that only one petition may be filed by allowing additional petitions based on new retroactive new rules of constitutional law and changes in statute when such rules are applicable to a collateral review of a criminal conviction. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/01/2014 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14102825D |
01/01/2014 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
01/15/2014 | Reported from Courts of Justice (8-Y 7-N) (see vote tally) |
01/17/2014 | Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) |
01/20/2014 | Read second time and engrossed |
01/21/2014 | Read third time and passed Senate (26-Y 11-N) |
01/24/2014 | Placed on Calendar |
01/24/2014 | Read first time |
01/24/2014 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
02/12/2014 | Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law |
02/14/2014 | Subcommittee recommends laying on the table |
03/04/2014 | Left in Courts of Justice |
Comments
While I understand that there are many arguments for finality in judgments, I think there is a strong case to be made that the state law should be improved to permit successive petitions for the limited purpose where there is an intervening change in law.
Federal case law and 28 USC §2244 already permits such similar successive filings in the federal courts. This appears to not only be a more costly route to take when the State is required to argue its position in federal proceedings, but it also appears to deprive the state courts from having the first opportunity to review the conclusions of law that should be applied to any intervening changes in statutes and/or precedent prior to being directed to do so by the federal courts. For that reason alone, it would seem to be logical that the state statute be amended in this fashion in order to reserve the right of first review for the state courts in these circumstances.
Everyone should Support SB 171!
SUPPORT SB 171 in VIRGINIA - Amending the Writ of Actual Innocence
http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6220/c/1529/p/dia/action3/common/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=16139#
this bill needs to be passed to allow someone with new evidence to be given the chance to be free. why would the state not give a person with new evidence or a change in law a chance because it causes extra paper work????!!!!! does not innocence matter the MOST?