Exonerees, innocence groups urge CalVCB to remain neutral after staff role cited in proposed SB 490

Exonerees, innocence advocates and a retired prosecutor told the California Victim Compensation Board on Wednesday that the board’s perceived involvement in drafting Senate Bill 490 undercuts its ability to act as a neutral adjudicator in compensation claims for the wrongfully convicted.

At public comment, Joseph Trujillo, executive director of Loyola Law School’s Project for the Innocent, said SB 490 would “extend the time and allow the attorney general’s office or the district attorney’s office objecting to claims to delay compensation and extend their time to oppose,” and would “limit the consideration of new evidence by this board.” He and other speakers said drafts and amendments to the bill appeared to have come from CalVCB or its staff and urged the board to recommit to neutral decision‑making.

The concerns were echoed by retired Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Karen Sinoontowery, exonerees Kimberly Long, Stephan Patterson and Jeremy Puckett, and representatives from the Northern California Innocence Project and the California Innocence Coalition. Long described being exonerated in 2021 and said, “If the state had been allowed to rely solely on the trial record to decide whether I deserve compensation, I never would have had a chance.”

Speakers listed several specific objections to SB 490 as introduced: allowing objections to be limited to the original trial record (excluding post‑conviction evidence), permitting restitution claims to be deducted from compensation, and extending timelines that could delay awards. Commenters warned that those changes would make it harder for exonerees to obtain compensation after courts have reversed convictions.

Board Chair Ravel told speakers and the room that the board’s role is to apply the law “neutrally, not to have a thumb on the scale,” and said, to his knowledge, “the board has not taken a position on this legislation” and “was not the sponsor of this bill.” Members Becton and Johnson likewise said they had not advocated for the bill and described the board’s role as non‑advocative. Staff later told the board that CalVCB had provided technical assistance that was publicly available, but several public commenters said the level of involvement around SB 490 felt greater than ordinary technical assistance.

Advocates asked CalVCB to clarify the agency’s process and criteria for engaging in legislative advocacy, to explain what technical assistance was provided and to review past compensation denials in light of the agency’s interactions around the bill. Jasmine Harris of the Innocence Center requested “clarification, either at the next board meeting or in writing, the process and criteria the board uses to determine when and how to engage in legislative advocacy.”

No board action on legislation was taken at the meeting. The board did not vote to sponsor or oppose SB 490 during this session; comments from the public were taken during the general public comment period. Board members and staff repeatedly characterized their roles as limited to providing information or technical assistance when asked by legislators, and members said they were not engaged in advocacy as board members during the hearing.

The public commenters and several board members called for transparency about the board’s contacts with bill sponsors and staff participation in drafting or meetings. Commenters also urged the board to avoid any advocacy that could create the appearance of bias when the board later adjudicates penal code section 4,900 claims.

The public comment segment concluded with the board acknowledging the concerns and saying staff would respond as appropriate in future meetings or communications.

The transcript shows the exchange occurred during the public comment and legislative update portions of the meeting and included multiple victims’ advocates and exonerees presenting statements to the board.