Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NH bill sponsor urges constitutional amendment to enshrine presumption of innocence
Summary
Representative Kelly Potenza told the House Judiciary Committee she wants voters to decide a constitutional amendment that would explicitly state the presumption of innocence applies in all state actions against an individual, including some civil and administrative proceedings.
Representative Kelly Potenza, Stratford District 19, opened the hearing on Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 7 by urging the committee to refer the amendment so voters could decide whether to add explicit presumption-of-innocence language to the New Hampshire Constitution. “Giving people the option to vote on amending the New Hampshire constitution to explicitly state that in all cases and suits of the state against one of the people, the defendant shall be innocent until proven guilty is important for several reasons,” Potenza said.
Potenza told the committee that while the presumption of innocence is a longstanding principle in criminal law and recognized by case law such as Coffin v. United States, some civil and administrative processes—she cited civil asset forfeiture and family-court matters—may not afford the same protections. She said codifying the presumption in the state constitution would “strengthen due process” and reduce the risk of government overreach in noncriminal proceedings.
Members questioned Potenza about scope and timing. Representative Horgan asked whether the sponsor intended the committee to develop precise wording now or to delay, noting the amendment would not appear on the ballot until November 2026. Potenza replied the phrase “one of the people” was intended to mirror language already used throughout the state constitution and that the reference to 2026 was why she was “getting a jump on it.”
Committee members also pressed Potenza on whether current statutes already put the burden on the state in family-law abuse-and-neglect proceedings, citing RSA 169‑C:13, which requires the petitioner to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Potenza said her change is “one step in the many” needed to shore up protections and suggested the amendment could be relied on in litigation to challenge practices that shift burdens onto individuals.
Potenza cited historical examples—including Korematsu and post‑9/11 detentions—to argue for constitutional safeguards and referenced recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that, she said, show courts turning to historical understandings of rights. She concluded by asking the committee whether lawmakers believe “people accused by the state in criminal or civil court are innocent until proven guilty” and urged members to refer the measure if they agreed.
The committee did not vote on CACR 7 at the hearing; the chair closed the public testimony after Potenza’s remarks and noted that no other witnesses wished to be heard.
