New Hampshire committee hears broad support and procedural concerns for bill easing time limit to seek new trial

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on Senate Bill 141, a proposal to create a narrow exception to New Hampshire's three‑year deadline for filing a motion for a new trial, allowing certain petitions based on newly discovered evidence or scientific advances.

Joshua Shower, legislative aide to Sen. Robert Gannon, introduced the bill on behalf of the prime sponsor and told the committee, "This bill is about liberty, fairness, and due process." He said the measure would let wrongfully convicted people bring petitions that courts could still deny under existing legal standards.

Winnie Yee of the Innocence Project and Cynthia Maso (testimony provided alongside Yee) said current law (RSA 5:26) bars many wrongful‑conviction claims after three years and that scientific advances can take far longer than that to emerge. "A three‑year deadline is really restrictive," Yee said, noting advances in forensic science and citing national reports on exonerations. The group handed the committee a fact sheet and a statutory chart showing the limited change it seeks: allow a court to consider a motion filed after the three‑year bar when the petitioner points to newly discovered evidence, new forensic testing, or new scientific understanding.

Thomas Velardi, director of the Division of Public Protection at the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office and a former Strafford County attorney, said prosecutors and courts already have tools to review post‑conviction claims and cautioned the committee about unintended consequences. "This is a solution looking for a problem," Velardi said, adding that the bill's current language could invite a flood of litigation and revive matters that prosecutors believed were resolved through habeas corpus or other collateral processes. He cited Governor Chris Sununu's veto message on a related 2024 bill and urged a broader, studied approach to updating post‑conviction testing statutes beyond DNA provisions (RSA 651‑D).

Committee members and witnesses debated where the line should be drawn between ensuring access to court for potentially innocent people and imposing an initial screening that incarcerated petitioners cannot meet without counsel. Supporters said the bill "cracks the door open" so a judge can decide whether newly discovered science might alter a verdict; opponents warned that an unfiltered procedural doorway could generate many costly evidentiary hearings. The Innocence Project representatives signaled willingness to accept a pleading requirement that a petitioner must allege specific newly discovered evidence, to ease prosecutorial and judicial concerns about frivolous filings.

Representative Lynn, the committee chair, circulated a proposed amendment and said he had drafted language intended to address several concerns raised in testimony; he indicated the committee was likely to "exec" the bill for further work and asked interested parties, including the Attorney General's Office, to provide comment on the amendment before the next meeting. Thomas Velardi said the Department of Justice would continue the dialogue with stakeholders.

Why it matters: The bill aims to reconcile the three‑year statutory bar under RSA 5:26 with modern forensic developments and cases where innocence may be demonstrable well after that deadline. Supporters argue the change is narrowly tailored to permit courts to hear claims based on new science; critics worry about front‑end screening, court workload and victim notification.

The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing. Members signaled they expect further drafting and comment before the bill moves forward.

Votes at a glance: No formal committee votes were recorded in the transcript.

Speakers quoted in this article were present in committee testimony or questions and include Joshua Shower (legislative aide for Sen. Gannon), Winnie Yee (Innocence Project), Cynthia Maso (co‑testifier), Thomas Velardi (New Hampshire Attorney General's Office), and multiple state representatives who asked questions during the hearing.

Sources: Committee hearing transcript; witness fact sheet distributed at the hearing.