Advocates, DOJ outline narrowed wrongful‑conviction fixes, aim to reduce litigation for exonerees
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Advocates and the Oregon Department of Justice described narrowed, no‑cost changes to the wrongful‑conviction compensation statute (following SB1007 and prior efforts) that would create agreed eligibility categories and a DOJ review timeline to avoid relitigation and reduce years of retraumatizing litigation for exonerees.
Janice Purakhel, Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project, updated the Senate Judiciary committee on efforts to streamline Oregon's wrongful‑conviction compensation process and to open a narrow "change in science" pathway for a subset of cases.
Purakhel said advocates and DOJ staff agreed on two categories of exonerees who should not have to reprove innocence in compensation proceedings: those with prior court findings establishing innocence (for example, federal habeas findings) and individuals pardoned on grounds of innocence. "They are entitled to compensation," she told the committee, adding that narrowing eligibility in this way avoids unnecessary litigation.
She summarized a second reform: a statutorily prescribed timeline that requires DOJ to review compensation petitions and stand down when the department agrees the petitioner meets the statute's elements. "To date, in all of the cases that we've been litigating, we've been doing scorched earth litigation," Purakhel said, arguing the change will spare exonerees lengthy and costly court fights.
Leslie Wu, policy advisor to Attorney General Rayfield, said the DOJ has committed to clearing a backlog of historic claims and provided case counts: the office has received 82 tort claims, 43 of which led to active litigation, and had resolved about 55% of active cases as of September; DOJ aimed to resolve roughly 75% of the historic claims before the end of 2025.
The committee was reminded of prior action in this area: the panel previously voted unanimously to send earlier bills (including SB1007 and a change-in-science concept, SB554) to Ways and Means but prior fiscal notes limited passage; advocates said the current package focuses on no‑cost technical fixes to make relief more immediate.
What happens next: advocates urged the committee to advance narrow statutory timelines and eligibility carve-outs during the short session to reduce litigation burdens on exonerees and lower state litigation costs.