Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Conviction Relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects broad amendment to petitions for new trials; debate centers on liberty and court finality
Summary
Lawmakers debated and rejected a committee amendment that would have added extensive procedural "guardrails" to motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence, with advocates for and against the amendment arguing over finality, court workload and wrongful-conviction safeguards.
The House on May 1 debated changes to the state's petition-for-new-trial process and rejected a lengthy committee amendment that would have placed specific procedural conditions and limitations on motions filed after the statutory time limit.
The underlying Senate bill would extend time limits for filing a motion for a new trial in certain cases; the committee's majority amendment (1654H) added detailed requirements modeled on the state's DNA testing statute and limited the amendment's scope to felony convictions, among other provisions. Representative Bob Lynn warned the amendment "creates a roadblock to filing petitions" and criticized elements he said could deter legitimate claims. Representative Linds (committee majority) defended the amendment as balancing finality with fair opportunity for wrongfully convicted persons, citing the DNA-testing statute as precedent.
Supporters of the original, less-restricted proposal argued the amendment threatened longstanding liberty protections dating back to an 1878 statute and to the New Hampshire Constitution, Part I, Article 14, which guarantees access to remedies. Opponents of the amendment said the courts already have tools to reject frivolous filings, and that the amendment would erect too many barriers to post-conviction relief.
On a division vote the amendment failed by 172-191. With the amendment rejected, the bill remained on second reading and open to further amendment. Lawmakers signaled a desire to continue negotiations between the chambers to produce language that balances victims' and defendants' rights and court efficiency.
No final statutory change was enacted on the House floor during the session; procedural votes set the stage for further committee and interchamber negotiations.
