Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Exoneration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House circled exoneration bill after heated debate over taxpayer compensation
Summary
The House circled House Bill 154, which would create a judicial route to declare factual innocence and provide financial assistance to exonerees, after members split over whether taxpayers should fund compensation; sponsor tied payments to existing victim-reparations mechanisms and the bill will be revised for compromise.
House Bill 154, a two-part proposal to allow courts to declare a person factually innocent based on new evidence and to provide financial assistance to those judicially exonerated, was circled by the Utah House on a motion to set the bill aside for further work.
Representative David Litvak, the sponsor, told colleagues the bill creates a petition process for courts to find factual innocence — beyond the DNA-based mechanism already on the books — requiring a finding by the court by clear and convincing evidence. He said the bill is narrowly drafted to exclude releases based on technicalities and to ensure eligibility is limited to those who can demonstrate they did not commit the crime.
Litvak also described the bill’s assistance component, saying the Office of Crime Victim Reparations (CVR) would provide an initial payment and the legislature would appropriate remaining funds. "The assistance is designed to provide the individual an opportunity ... it's a way back into their world," he said, arguing exonerees face barriers to employment, housing and health care after release.
Opponents on the floor questioned whether taxpayers should shoulder compensation. Representative Clark moved to delete the compensation section (lines identified on the bill), saying the justice system does not obligate taxpayers to pay for wrongful convictions. Representative Clark argued that while exoneration is tragic, the state should not be made financially responsible as a matter of routine policy.
Supporters responded that many other states — and the federal government — provide some form of compensation or assistance. "I personally believe it's the right and the humane thing to do," Representative Litvak said in urging retention of the assistance provision. Several members said they wanted to negotiate a narrower or lower-dollar approach rather than eliminating assistance altogether.
After extended debate about fairness to taxpayers, the prevalence of claims (the sponsor referenced six claims under the DNA exoneration law with one release), and the fiscal note (which the sponsor said does not anticipate an immediate benefit claim), the House voted to circle the bill to allow further negotiation on the assistance component.
Next steps: House Bill 154 will be revisited by the sponsor and interested members for compromise language on compensation and implementation details before returning to the House calendar.
