New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) vetoed a bill that would have enabled more people to challenge convictions when new evidence has been discovered in the case.
The Challenging Wrongful Conviction Act would have reformed Criminal Procedure Law 440 to allow convictions to be challenged in court when new evidence is discovered, even if the defendant pleaded guilty.
Currently, New York typically only allows challenges to convictions with guilty pleas if DNA evidence is discovered, the bill would have allowed other types of evidence to be used, including evidence that the guilty plea was coerced.
The bill was championed by state Democrats and judicial reform advocates. State Republicans and the District Attorney’s Association of the State of New York opposed the bill.
In her letter explaining her Christmas-eve veto, Hochul said that the bill would have caused a “sweeping expansion of eligibility for post-conviction relief” that would “up-end the judicial system and create an unjustifiable risk of flooding the courts with frivolous claims.”
Non-DNA exonerations have been increasing. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there were 234 non-DNA exonerations in 2022, compared to 100 in 2012. There have never been more than 30 DNA-based exonerations in a single year.
“Governor Hochul’s failure to sign the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act only shows that she believes that innocent people should be in prison,” Roger Clark, the leader of the VOCAL-NY, a state activist group said in a press release. “There’s no excuse for her not to sign this bill. We will be back in Albany in January to continue our efforts to end wrongful incarceration and to keep fighting until there is justice.”
State Senator Zellnor Myrie (D), who sponsored the bill, said he is considering reintroducing it.
According to the registry, the most recent exoneration in the nation was for James Soto and David Ayala who were falsely convicted of murder in 1981. They spent 41 years in prison before being released earlier this month. DNA evidence was not used in the exoneration.