Meeting Public Comments

Andrew Ritland [Mahaska County Attorney's Office]

As the Mahaska County Attorney, I oppose HSB 36. While I agree that wrongly convicted individuals must be able to prove their innocence, this bill should not advance out of subcommittee. My concerns include: (1) Overly Broad Preservation Requirements The bill requires law enforcement agencies to preserve biological evidence for up to twenty years. Except for Class A felonies, no evidence should be kept beyond the statute of limitations for postconviction relief (PCR). Under Iowa Code 822.3, PCR petitions must be filed within three years after a conviction becomes final (or, in the event of an appeal, from the date the writ of procedendo is issued). If identity truly is in question, the issue should be raised within that timeframe, rather than years later. Moreover, most PCR claims involve ineffective assistance of counselnot the perpetrators identityso preserving large quantities of DNA evidence when identity is not disputed is unwarranted. (2) Unclear Definition of Biological Evidence On page 1, line 16, biological evidence is defined as any biological matter that may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense. With the rise of touch DNA, this definition would encompass virtually all physical evidence found at a crime scene, creating significant and unnecessary preservation obligations. (3) Lack of a Specific Remedy for Violations Page 4, lines 1316, states that a court may impose appropriate sanctions and order appropriate remedies when a provision is violated, yet those terms remain undefined. It is unclear how such a violation would affect a PCR matter, leaving significant ambiguity in enforcement and consequence. (4) Division II Is Unnecessary The State is already required to disclose to the defendant any impeachment information, including benefits received by witnesses. Additionally, the 90day timeline on page 5, line 4, would require disclosures at the time trial information is filed, which conflicts with the defendants right to demand a speedy trial at arraignment. Furthermore, the pretrial hearing on page 6, line 16, imposes higher procedural standards on one class of witnesses than on all others. If testimony is relevant, any bias goes to credibility, not admissibility, and should remain in the jurys domain to make those credibility determinations. (5) Overly Broad Postconviction File Access Beginning on page 7, line 29, the bill allows extensive civil discovery before a PCR action is filed. Discovery should only occur after a proper PCR filing to ensure judicial oversight and to prevent fishing expeditions without a formal claim. These points are not exhaustive but illustrate the bills significant shortcomings. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the subcommittee not to advance HSB 36.