House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2129 - Committee on Judiciary
Short Title
Requiring defendants who petition the court for forensic DNA testing to notify the court when such testing is complete and request a hearing based on whether the evidence is favorable or unfavorable.
Minutes Content for Mon, Jan 30, 2023
Chairperson Patton opened the hearing on HB2129. Natalie Scott (Attachment 4) provided an overview of the bill. She stood for questions.
Proponent
Aaron Breitenbach (Attachment 5), on behalf of Marc Bennett, District Attorney of the Eighteenth Judicial District, and the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association, came to ask the membership to clarify how the courts should implement K.S.A. 21-2512, which provides convicted defendants an opportunity to request additional DNA testing in pursuit of exoneration. Mr. Breitenbach explains some recommended amendments in his written testimony. He also stated neither prosecutors nor victims are served by the incarceration of the innocent. These amendments are offered to clear the path to review potential DNA evidence where it could free the innocent while also freeing limited resources from meritless claims to better serve the ends of justice. Mr Breitenbach stood for questions.
Opponent
Clayton J. Perkins (Attachment 6) explained virtually every change proposed in HB2129 would limit access to post-conviction DNA testing in various significant ways. His written testimony explains this in detail. Mr. Perkins states the changes in HB2129, would just serve to further limit an already restricted mechanism meant to allow wrongfully convicted Kansans to prove their innocence. He thanked the membership and stood for questions.
Jean Phillips (Attachment 7) used the incarceration of Floyd Bledsoe, whose conviction was overturned in 2008 based in part on DNA testing obtained under K.S.A. 21-2512, in a variety of the examples she talked about. Ms. Phillips explained there are changes to the K.S.A. 21-2512, in the proposed bill, that will make it more difficult for innocent persons to obtain DNA testing. She said by adding “preponderance of the evidence” a person would have a higher burden than required for any other post-conviction relief. The need for finality is understandable, but it should never come at the cost of incarcerating the wrong person. Prosecutors and juries are fallible. They must strive to correct the errors, not put up unnecessary barriers. For these reasons, she personally, along with the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys oppose HB2129. Ms. Phillips stood for questions.
Written Opponent
Tricia Fojo Bushnell, Executive Director, Midwest Innocence Project (Attachment 8)
Chairperson Patton closed the hearing on HB2129.
Chairperson Patton said there may be final action tomorrow on bills previously heard and adjourned the meeting at 4:50 pm.
