|
|
|
|
Mass. Act to provide Compensation for Certain
Erroneous Felony Convictions
by Greg Larkin, April 2005
After stalling several times since first being introduced in 1999,
a much-needed bill for the compensation of certain erroneous felony
convictions finally was signed into law on Dec. 30th of
2004. Massachusetts (and
Suffolk County in particular) has an astonishing record of erroneous
convictions surpassed only by Illinois (and most famously Chicago). In 2004, this embarrassing record
was splashed across newspaper headlines with several high profile releases
including Laurence Abrams who, when a judge overturned his 1974 murder
conviction, became the 22nd person in Massachusetts to be
released because of a wrongful conviction in the past 22 years and the
ninth since 1997. Among the
wide ranging revelations from these investigations were overzealous law
enforcement officers, an incompetent fingerprinting lab, perjured
testimony, and widespread eyewitness misidentification. Following this crescendo in
coverage, Massachusetts has joined 18 other states, the District of
Columbia, and the federal government by creating a process by which these
erroneously convicted could more easily claim compensation. (Three charts comparing those
other statutes are on this website at http://www.cjpc.org/rest_other_states.htm.)
The erroneous conviction compensation bill that finally passed into
law was originally sponsored by Rep. Patricia Jehlen (D. Somerville) in the House and Senator Dianne
Wilkerson (D. Suffolk) in the Senate. It reached the Governor’s desk in
July of 2004, but the Governor sent back the bill with several
suggestions, before finally being passed into law at the end of the
year. It has been codified as
M.G.L. Chapter 258D and is found at (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw04/sl040444.htm).
The bill is a must-needed if subtly flawed first step. With some restrictions, the law
allows those who have been pardoned or who have been granted judicial
relief to have a civil trial for compensation. Its structure and much of its
language echo such model legislation as proposed by the Innocence Project;
however, there are several significant departures from this
model.
The eligible class of persons includes all convicted of felonies
with the exception of those who are sentenced to periods of incarceration
of less than one year. An
additional important restriction is that the claimant did not commit any
felony or lesser crime arising out of, or reasonably connected with, the
facts supporting the original indictment unless that lesser crime is a
misdemeanor whose maximum sentence plus one year is less than the actual
period of incarceration served.
This eligibility of persons was highly debated. There were unsuccessful efforts by
some, including the Governor, to exclude those whose own conduct caused
their conviction and also those who were granted judicial relief without
having their charges discharged but rather received a “not guilty” verdict
in their new trial. One
restriction did become part of the law, however. One of the Governor’s
recommendations that those pardoned must also receive a letter from the
Governor asserting his belief of innocence has been included.
The trial to determine the compensation also has some important
divergences from the initially proposed bill. In these trials, the law
explicitly forbids the exclusion of evidence traditionally prohibited by
the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the
U.S. Constitution and Articles 12 and 14 of Part the First of the Mass.
Constitution, which include protections against unreasonable search and
seizure (4th and Article 14), due process (5th), protection from being
compelled to self-incriminate (5th and Article 12), and the
right to confront the witnesses against him or her in court
(6th and Article 12).
The inclusion of
the 6th amendment in the above-mentioned list came from the
Governor’s suggested edits to the original legislation.
In order to “fairly and reasonably” compensate the victim of the
erroneous conviction, the court may find for cash damages up to $500,000
in addition to physical and mental health services and an educational
discount of 50% against tuition and fees at state and community
colleges. The compensation is
exempt from state taxes except for any portion of the compensation used to
compensate the attorney bringing the successful claim.
Lastly, upon a result in favor of the claimant and following a
separate court hearing, an order may be sought by the claimant to expunge
or seal the records of the claimant maintained by the government. Certain agencies, including law
enforcement, will be given the opportunity at the hearing to argue whether
the hindrance on future prosecution of other crimes and other persons by
such expungementor sealing outweighs the claimant’s interests of privacy and justice. |
|
For More Information Contact: Electronic Address: [email protected] |
