Connecticut Bill Would Give Brady Victims 50% of Exoneration Funds Available to Actually Innocent Defendants

On Friday, I posted an entry about Texas denying exoneration funds to a defendant who had proven a Brady violation but (arguably) failed to prove actual innocence. This led me to revisit the dichotomy that exists in many states, with (1) actually innocent defendants receiving exoneration funds despite the fact that their convictions were by-the-books; but (2) defendants being denied exoneration funds because they can prove government misconduct but can’t (quite) prove actual innocence.

Interestingly, Connecticut now has a proposed bill that would create a middle ground.

That proposed bill is Senate Bill 460.

S.B. 460 finesses the issue….Rather than providing those whose convictions are vacated and charges dismissed without a court finding of actual innocence either no compensation, as some would prefer, or full compensation,…the new legislation stipulates that those whose convictions are vacated because of prosecutorial or law enforcement misconduct or negligence and the complaint is dismissed receive full compensation if there is a court finding of actual innocence and the person proves his innocence to the claims commissioner. But if there is no finding of innocence and the person can’t prove his innocence, the compensation is reduced by 50 percent.

Obviously, such a compromise is attractive because it doesn’t leave Brady victims penniless. 

But some, such as the Connecticut and national Innocence Projects, believe it is unfair to reduce by 50 percent the compensation awarded to someone whose conviction has been vacated because of the misconduct or negligence of prosecutorial or other law enforcement officials if there is no finding of actual innocence and the person can’t prove his innocence. If the state decides not to try someone after the conviction was vacated because of such misconduct or negligence, shouldn’t that person, who is presumed innocent, receive full compensation regardless of whether there is a finding and proof of actual innocence? Why do innocent people have to prove their innocence?

I certainly understand this position, and it takes everything back to the question I posed back on the Labor Day Minisode of the Undisclosed Podcast: Who is more deserving of exoneration funds? The actually innocent defendant who was convicted without any misconduct by the State or the potentially innocent defendant who had his conviction thrown out due to government misconduct? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m glad that Connecticut is at least making some attempt to compensate both sets of individuals.

-CM