Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Post Conviction Dna topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Innocence advocates urge judges to allow post‑conviction DNA testing without incarceration barrier

2526146 · March 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Witnesses supported HB 6983 to remove an incarceration requirement for post‑conviction DNA testing and to create an appeal right after denial. Testimony recounted exoneree cases and said current limits leave many wrongfully convicted people without recourse, especially those who pled guilty.

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony March 7 on HB 6983, a bill that would remove an incarceration requirement from the state post‑conviction DNA‑testing statute and add an explicit right to appeal a denial of testing.

Amanda Walwin of the Innocence Project described cases in which evidence discovery after release uncovered exculpatory DNA results, including an example in which a man released on probation could not petition for testing because he was no longer incarcerated. She said judges already function as gatekeepers and that codifying an appeal right would align practice with statute.

Witnesses recommended lifting the guilty‑plea bar for certain serious offenses (murder, felony assault, felony sexual assault and robbery) so those who pled guilty and later had exculpatory leads would have preserved access to testing. The Connecticut Forensic Science Laboratory and stakeholders were described as partners in identifying practical retention and storage solutions for evidence that the bill’s changes could increase in number.

Lawmakers asked how expanded rights would affect storage burdens. The Innocence Project representative said the bill’s advocates are discussing evidence‑retention logistics with the state lab and law enforcement and would recommend resources if necessary.

No vote was taken at the hearing. Proponents asked the committee to advance language that preserves judicial review while widening access to testing for people released from custody or who pled guilty.