AG's office asks committee to clarify eligibility and reimbursement rules in wrongful-conviction bill AB 63

Attorney General Aaron Ford and senior staff presented Assembly Bill 63 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposing clarifications and technical fixes to Nevada's wrongful-conviction compensation statutes.

The bill, presented by senior deputy Jaimie (Jamie) Stills and Heather Proctor of the attorney general's post-conviction unit, would make three principal changes to NRS chapter 41 provisions governing wrongful-conviction awards: (1) add a statutory definition of "incarcerated" to mean confinement in a local detention facility, county jail or state prison; (2) clarify the statutory criteria that a vacated or reversed conviction must be related to the claimant's actual innocence rather than legal error; and (3) correct a clerical drafting error so that the statutory $100,000 cap for certain benefits applies to the catch-all "any other relief" category for reimbursable benefits.

Stills told the committee the changes are intended to clarify preliminary qualifications and to better align the statutory language with the statute's original intent: monetary relief to help a person recently released from custody rebuild their life, not to assign fault to particular actors. The presenters said the Board of Examiners historically reimburses actual expenses for certain benefits (housing, counseling, tuition and health insurance) rather than paying vendors directly, and the bill would reflect that practice by using the term "reimbursement" rather than "payment."

Senators asked detailed questions about potential impacts. Vice Chair Flores raised a hypothetical about a reversal due to a technical legal error, and whether that would leave an innocent person unable to obtain a remedy if prosecutors elected not to retry the case. Jamie Stills and Heather Proctor replied that the wrongful-conviction statute is intended to compensate those who are "actually innocent," and that a separate actual-innocence procedure under NRS chapter 34 (an "actual innocence petition") is the route to establish factual innocence if a reversal was for legal error. Stills said clarifying subsection D would assist courts and applicants in distinguishing reversals based on legal error from those tied to factual innocence.

Senator Krasner pressed the office on why the bill moves from direct payment to a reimbursement model for services such as housing and counseling. Proctor and Stills explained the Board of Examiners previously reimbursed claimants for documented expenses and that certifying and paying third-party providers directly would be a more complex, slower and administratively heavier process. Stills said reimbursements are typically processed quarterly and noted that the Board requested the change.

The committee also discussed caseload numbers and outcomes. Stills initially told the committee the attorney general's office had received 12 applications since the statute was enacted in 2019; she later updated that the office had 13 cases and said eight had been reimbursed. Senators expressed concern about access to counsel and the resources required for claimants to pursue the statutory procedure. The presenters noted the statute authorizes attorney-fee awards for prevailing claimants.

Cornerstone Public Affairs and Jason Frierson offered a conceptual amendment, which the attorney general's office accepted as a friendly clarification. Frierson and the AG's office said the amendment clarifies that issuance of a certificate of innocence and an award under the statute would not be treated as a finding of wrongdoing against investigators or prosecutors and would not preclude a litigant from pursuing other civil remedies such as a 42 U.S.C. A7 1983 claim when supported by evidence. Frierson said the amendment is intended to preserve the "no-fault" character of the wrongful-conviction compensation process while leaving open other potential remedies.

Opposition testimony included advocates who asked that the statute explicitly allow compensation when a claimant died in custody and argued for including additional protections for destroyed or withheld exculpatory evidence; the attorney general's office said those proposals were discussed in earlier committee work but were not adopted in the current updated text.

The hearing record shows detailed questioning and technical clarifications but no committee vote on AB 63 in the transcript.

Why this matters: AB 63 would change the procedural and statutory contours by which people who were wrongfully convicted can seek a certificate of innocence and monetary relief. The definitions and reimbursement rules affect who is eligible, how quickly claimants can obtain benefits and whether the Board of Examiners pays vendors directly or reimburses claimants.