Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee advances wrongful‑imprisonment bill after exoneree testimony and judiciary implementation concerns
Loading...
Summary
The House Committee on Public Safety voted to pass SB 3,294 HD1 with DCR amendments after emotional testimony from exoneree Gordon Cordero and repeated operational warnings from the judiciary that some orders in the bill must be handled in civil court. Lawmakers agreed to move the measure to conference and scheduled decision making.
The House Committee on Public Safety advanced Senate Bill 3,294, House Draft 1 — a measure to provide compensation and support to people wrongfully imprisoned — after testimony from an exoneree and agency witnesses and a committee vote to pass the measure with Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) amendments.
Gordon Cordero, who said he was released on Feb. 21, 2025 after 31 years of wrongful imprisonment, told the committee that the state left him at the gate with only a 30‑day supply of medication and no plan. "No ID, no money, no transportation, no access to basic necessities," Cordero said, arguing that "the advance payments are not a windfall. They are not a reward. They are basic survival" and that "freedom without support is not justice."
The bill would authorize specified payments and post‑release supports for people whose convictions are vacated. During questioning, Jennifer Wong, staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the First Circuit Court, warned the committee that many of the bill's orders — for example, directing DHS to appoint case managers or ordering payments from the comptroller — could not be made in criminal or Rule 40 proceedings. "It has to be transferred to a civil court in order to make all these payments ordered," Wong said, explaining that the judiciary lacks authority to order non‑criminal, equitable relief in the criminal context.
Wong told lawmakers the bill as drafted creates practical steps the judiciary cannot perform without transferring a matter into an existing civil petition framework (she referenced the 6 61 b petition structure) and serving additional parties such as the attorney general. She also said the five‑day timeframe for petitioning and service in the draft would be difficult to meet, and the committee discussed extending that window to 10 days to accommodate service and processing.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation testimony supported the bill's goals but emphasized post‑release jurisdictional limits: "Once the person's released, we have no jurisdiction in the case," the DCR director said, urging DHS to assign case managers and coordinate on ID and benefits continuity. Edie Mayeshero of the Department of Human Services said DHS stood on its written testimony and asked for more time to work through operational details.
Lawmakers pressed advocates and agencies to refine statutory language to avoid parallel proceedings — for example, a Rule 40 criminal appeal occurring at the same time as a civil petition for relief — and to clarify which court would make particular findings (days in custody, calculation of awards) and how state agencies would be served and required to act.
On the record, the committee adopted the chair's recommendation to pass SB 3,294 SD2 HD1 with DCR amendments and noted the item could go to conference for final language adjustments; the chair indicated the bill's defective date would be preserved. The committee recessed for decision making and set further action on related items for the next scheduled decision‑making session.
The committee scheduled decision making on related measures for 11:00 a.m. Friday, March 27, 2026, in Conference Room 411; SB 3,294 will proceed to whatever conference process the chamber requires next.
