HSB 567 (LSB 5225YC (7) 88)

HOUSE FILE _____ 

BY  (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY BILL BY CHAIRPERSON HOLT)

A BILL FOR

An Act relating to forensic scientific evidence and postconviction relief.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

    Section 1.  Section 822.2, subsection 1, Code 2020, is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
   NEW PARAGRAPH.  i.  There exists forensic scientific evidence pursuant to section 822.2A.
    Sec. 2.  NEW SECTION.  822.2A  Forensic scientific evidence.
   1.  As used in this section:
   a.  “Applied validity” means the reliability of a scientific method or technique in practice.
   b.  “Forensic science” means the application of scientific or technical practices to the recognition, collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence for criminal and civil law or regulatory issues.
   c.  “Forensic scientific evidence” includes scientific or technical knowledge including a forensic analyst’s or expert’s scientific or technical knowledge or opinion and reports offered by forensic analysts and experts; scientific standards, and a scientific method or technique upon which forensic scientific evidence is based.
   d.  “Foundational validity” means the reliability of a scientific method that is repeatable, reproducible, and accurate in a scientific setting.
   e.  “Scientific knowledge” includes knowledge of the general scientific community and all fields of scientific knowledge upon which those fields are based.
   2.  A person seeking relief under section 822.2, subsection 1, paragraph “i”, shall prove all of the following:
   a.  There is evidence of any of the following:
   (1)  Forensic scientific evidence that was not discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence by the person on the date of the person’s conviction or guilty plea. In determining whether forensic scientific evidence was not discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the date of a person’s conviction or guilty plea, the court shall consider whether a claim or issue could not have been presented previously in the person’s original application or in any previously considered application if the claim or issue is based on forensic scientific evidence that was not available through the exercise of reasonable diligence by the person on or before the date on which the original application or a previously considered application, as applicable, was filed.
   (2)  Forensic scientific evidence that undermines the forensic scientific evidence used to convict the person. Forensic scientific evidence is considered to be undermined if new research or information exists that repudiates the foundational validity of scientific evidence or expert testimony or the applied validity of a scientific method or technique.
   b.  The person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that had the forensic scientific evidence been presented at the time of the person’s conviction or guilty plea, it would have probably changed the result of the trial or voided the factual basis of the guilty plea.
   c.  The forensic scientific evidence would have been admissible under the Iowa rules of evidence in existence at the time of the person’s conviction or guilty plea.
   3.  Claims brought pursuant to section 822.2, subsection 1, paragraph “i”, are not subject to the limitation periods provided in section 822.3.
   4.  This section does not create a cause of action against an expert who repudiates the expert’s opinion during any proceeding that resulted in a conviction or whose opinion has been undermined by subsequent scientific research or technological advancements.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
   This bill allows a court to grant postconviction relief if a person who files an application for postconviction relief proves all of the following: 1) there is forensic scientific evidence that was not discoverable at the time of the person’s conviction or guilty plea or that undermines forensic scientific evidence used to convict the person, 2) the person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the forensic scientific evidence would have probably changed the result of the trial or voided the factual basis of the guilty plea, and 3) the forensic scientific evidence would have been admissible under the Iowa rules of evidence in existence at the time of the person’s conviction or guilty plea. 
   The bill provides that in determining whether forensic scientific evidence was not discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence, a court shall consider whether the claim or issue could not have been presented previously in the person’s original application or in any previously considered application. 
   Under the bill, a claim for postconviction relief based upon forensic scientific evidence is not subject to the time limitations in Code section 822.3. The bill does not create a cause of action against an expert who repudiates the expert’s original opinion during any proceeding that resulted in a conviction or whose opinion is undermined by any subsequent scientific research or technological advancement. 
   The bill provides definitions of “forensic science”, “forensic scientific evidence”, “scientific knowledge”, “applied validity”, and “foundational validity”.