Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Postconviction Reform Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lengthy debate as committee advances major post‑conviction reform; defense and innocence groups urge delay, AG and DAs press for finality
Summary
House Bill 675, a wide‑ranging post‑conviction reform package that sets new timelines and procedural rules for capital and non‑capital cases, was reported with amendments after a prolonged committee debate over deadlines, funding and capacity.
Representative Glorioso presented House Bill 675, described in testimony as a comprehensive attempt to set deadlines and procedures for post‑conviction relief, to create greater finality for victims and to cure perceived abuses in the post‑conviction system.
The attorney general’s office and the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation supported embedding the Fugitive Apprehension Unit and supported steps to move long‑pending capital cases forward; Larry Freeman (chief deputy attorney general) and Ernest Green (Louisiana Bureau of Investigation) urged favorable action. Freeman explained certain amendments were intended to align notice and funding mechanisms.
Defense offices, innocence‑project attorneys and law‑school clinics strongly opposed the proposed deadlines as drafted. Cecilia Capel (Loyola Center for Social Justice) and Matilda Carbia (post‑conviction center) testified that current staffing, records access timelines and the complexity of capital litigation make the bill’s deadlines read as unworkable without an on‑ramp and additional resources. Capel said the offices “represent a dozen people on death row… Our ability to ethically represent our clients with this budget relies on the fact that not every single case can be moving at the same time.”
Tiffany Simpson of the Office of the State Public Defender told senators the public defender’s office had not seen some late amendments and warned that requiring JLCB (Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget) approval before accessing dedicated funds could slow representation. Senators and witnesses debated a $4.2 million funding figure that had been discussed for defense work; Freeman said the amendment sought guardrails for the fund, while defense counsel warned extra approval steps would delay litigation.
Motions adopting amendment sets 26‑83 and 26‑22 were accepted; senators repeatedly asked the author to consider an additional delayed effective date or “on ramp.” Representative Glorioso said he would continue to work with stakeholders to adjust deadlines. The committee reported HB 675 with amendments.
