Senate committee hears push to fix Oregon wrongful-conviction compensation process

Senate Judiciary Committee members heard testimony Feb. 27 on SB 1007, a bill proponents say would clarify and broaden Oregon—s wrongful-conviction compensation process and make it easier for exonerees to receive payments and services.

The bill—s sponsor and supporters said the intent of Oregon—s 2022 Justice for Exonerees Act has been frustrated by procedural and legal hurdles that force exonerees into protracted litigation. "This measure clarifies and adapts Oregon—s wrongful convictions compensation statute and increases the scope of available compensation," said Chris (staff member), who gave the committee—s overview.

Why it matters: Testimony described exoneration as a continuing trauma when the state does not provide timely financial and social supports. Advocates and exonerees said money that should support re-entry instead goes to litigating guilt, and some people who ultimately prevailed accepted settlements for far less than the statute envisions.

Janice Pericle, executive director of the Forensic Justice Project, told the committee that only a handful of exonerees have received compensation since the 2022 law took effect and that many had to "negotiate away their rights, taking pennies on the dollar" because the process was so adversarial. "None of them received a certificate of innocence. None of them received any services, including therapy or job training or education," Pericle said.

Two exonerees described the personal harms. Philip Scott Cannon summarized more than a decade lost: "I spent over 11 years in Oregon prisons wrongfully convicted for a crime I did not do," Cannon said, urging lawmakers to "don—t let the state do it again." A written statement from Frank Gable, read into the record by Pericle, said he served more than 30 years for a murder he did not commit and remains without state support since his release.

Winnie Yee, state policy advocate with the Innocence Project, said Oregon—s statute contains the model elements common to compensation laws but has not been implemented to match legislative intent. "Since the law took effect, only 4 exonerees have been compensated through settlements, and there's been substantial back-and-forth litigation, which has caused additional harm and trauma to Oregon exonerees," Yee said.

Leslie Wu, policy advisor to Attorney General Dan Rayfield at the Oregon Department of Justice, acknowledged that the petition process has been slow and said the new attorney general has prioritized speeding claims and working with advocates. Wu said DOJ is pursuing "technical amendments" to streamline the process and expressed willingness to collaborate on language that respects the legislature—s policy choices.

What SB 1007 would change: The bill would (as described to the committee) clarify that a gubernatorial written grant of clemency or a court finding of innocence by a preponderance is sufficient to show wrongful conviction; require jurists to be instructed on the applicable standard of proof; expand compensable time to include all confinement and pretrial supervision; require courts to award expert witness fees; allow awards that cover up to four years of public college or university education and up to 10 years of a health-benefit plan; and direct courts to issue a certificate of innocence. The bill would also create a process requiring the attorney general to review petitions and newly presented evidence, issue a written opinion within 180 days, and, where the AG finds innocence by a preponderance, jointly file a petition for judgment in the petitioner—s favor.

Committee process and next steps: Supporters said they expect to work with the Department of Justice and Oregon Judicial Department on amendment language. Janice Pericle said advocates anticipated "helpful amendment language next week" to address implementation barriers. The public record will remain open for two days after the hearing for supplemental written testimony, per the committee—s instructions.

Ending: Committee members did not take a vote on SB 1007 during the hearing. Advocates urged statutory changes to shorten litigation, expand benefits and provide services that exonerees say were missing under current practice.