Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Erroneous Conviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses on Senate Bill 822 after members raise questions about county role in erroneous-conviction proceedings
Summary
The Judiciary Committee discussed a Senate amendment to House Bill 467 (Senate Bill 822) that would explicitly bar counties from being parties in administrative proceedings for erroneously convicted persons; delegates requested legal review and historical context and no vote was taken.
Chair Smith opened discussion of Senate Bill 822, the Senate cross-file of House Bill 467, noting the Senate added a provision that "for an administrative proceeding involving a person who was erroneously convicted the bill prohibits a county from being a party to the proceeding and a state's attorney from designating a county as a party to the proceeding."
Delegate Embry, speaking about the amendment, said the change "clarifies that the county may not be a party," and that the provision would apply retroactively to proceedings before Oct. 1, 2026. Members asked whether the amendment changed counties' financial obligations or merely their procedural status in administrative hearings.
Several delegates pressed for clarity on consequences. One member observed that under current practice counties pay a portion of wrongful-conviction awards — "50%" was cited during discussion — and asked whether barring counties from party status could nevertheless leave them financially responsible. Counsel indicated the new language is located in subsection 10-501B of the bill text and that the provision states a county "may not be a party to a proceeding under this subsection." Counsel also said they could not, on the spot, provide a full legal interpretation of how party status would affect liability.
Members raised practical concerns about how a judge would allow a nonparty county to participate in a proceeding where the county may still have a financial interest, and several suggested the amendment could prompt litigation about county rights and obligations. Delegate McComas recommended obtaining an Attorney General opinion to clarify whether being "not a party" would change a county's liability. Chair Smith directed members to review the Senate hearing and vote session materials and asked staff to provide the relevant clips and witness lists.
Delegate Embry told the committee that MAACO (as referenced in committee discussion) had been notified of the amendment and was "not thrilled" because it likely would make intervention harder, though she said the amendment would not remove the county's obligation under the 50/50 sharing arrangement.
Because several members said they still had unanswered questions about statutory effect, history and practical consequences, the committee deferred voting on SB 822 and agreed to reconvene after reviewing the Senate materials and, if needed, seeking an AG opinion.
The committee did not take formal action on Senate Bill 822 during this session.
