Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Conviction Relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters of SB 141 seek narrow exception to New Hampshire’s three‑year new‑trial deadline
Summary
Senate Bill 141 would create a limited exception to New Hampshire’s three‑year deadline to seek a new trial when newly discovered or newly discredited forensic evidence emerges, sponsor Sen. Gannon told the Judiciary Committee.
Senate Bill 141 would create a narrow exception to New Hampshire’s three‑year deadline to petition for a new trial when new scientific evidence or newly discovered evidence suggests a wrongful conviction, sponsor Sen. Gannon told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Supporters, including the New England Innocence Project and the Innocence Project, said the change would give wrongfully convicted people a pathway back into court when advances in forensic science or newly discovered evidence arise years after conviction. ‘‘The only thing we are trying to do is alter the time for when someone can apply for a new trial, not whether it will be granted or not,’’ Cynthia Musso, staff attorney with the New England Innocence Project, told the committee.
What the bill would do: The proposal narrows the circumstances under which the three‑year filing limit would be extended, listing categories such as newly discovered evidence, discredited forensic techniques or newly available forensic testing. Musso and Winnie Yee of the Innocence Project said the change is intended to be limited and to preserve the existing substantive standard for granting a new trial under RSA 5:26(1).
Objections from prosecutors: Several county prosecutors said they support the concept of allowing access to court for newly discovered evidence but opposed the bill’s current placement in RSA 5:26 and its broad, open‑ended wording. An assistant Merrimack County prosecutor warned that amending RSA 5:26 — a statute with language dating to the 1840s — could create unintended consequences and that a more targeted expansion of RSA 6:51‑D (the post‑conviction DNA testing framework) or a new complementary section might better address the issue. ‘‘The open‑ended language of this bill could have the unintended consequence of encouraging baseless assertions unnecessarily bogging down procedures,’’ one county attorney told the committee, quoting Governor Sununu’s earlier veto commentary on related language.
Supporters pushed back that the bill does not change the standard for granting relief, only the timing to apply. ‘‘This is not altering the standard. That section has been here since the beginning and will continue to be the standard for granting a new trial going forward,’’ Musso said.
Procedure and next steps: County attorneys and advocates said they would continue to consult on drafting. Prosecutors suggested either expanding RSA 6:51‑D to other scientific evidence or drafting more detailed language to prevent overly broad petitions; advocates said the bill’s limited list of qualifying circumstances was intended to avoid a flood of litigation.
Ending: The hearing closed with testimony from both innocence‑reform advocates and prosecutors; committee members heard offers from both sides to collaborate on more detailed statutory language. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
