Oregon Senate reps went to work on an inmate bill. Senate bill 1511, a bill that would allow individuals convicted by nonunanimous juries to appeal for post-conviction relief was limited by amendments in committee in a rare display of bipartisan support around this contentious issue. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that guilty verdicts by nonunanimous juries violate the U.S. Constitution. At that time, Oregon was the only state to allow such verdicts. Jury decisions of 10-2 and 11-1 could result in conviction on all felony cases except for murder and aggravated murder.
The other amendment came from the committee itself. It proposes to:
Limit who could apply for post-conviction relief to those still in custody and serving a sentence for conviction by a nonunanimous jury.
Outlined the process for applying for relief.
Directed $6 million to the Department of Justice, district attorney offices and community-based organizations for providing support to crime victims.
Increased the burden proof for establishing a verdict was nonunanimous from a “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing” evidence.
SB 1511 would apply retroactively. Potentially hundreds of cases could be appealed. For that reason, the bill is still considered “terrible” by the Senate Republican office. It believes it creates an “unnecessary opportunity” for criminals to be released from prison. Republican leadership has said the bill is part of a Democratic “pro-criminal” agenda this session. Those in support of the bill contend it is a matter of equity — not acting would leave convictions in place that are now considered unconstitutional.
But at least in committee, Republican senators thanked their Democratic colleagues for the changes to SB 1511, although they all voted “no” on moving the bill forward to the budget-writing Joint Ways and Means Committee.
Aliza Kaplan, director of the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School, testified in support of SB 1511 during public hearings earlier this month. In an interview Monday, Kaplan said she is now concerned about the bill excluding those convicted of a crime involving a person under the age of 18. Kaplan said she understands how difficult it is to go back to old cases, for victims, attorneys and those convicted of the crime. But, she said, it feels like the Legislature is now cherry-picking who gets to have their constitutional rights restored. “Everyone deserves some kind of relief, and that is not what this bill is,” Kaplan said. “Will it help a lot of people? I sure hope so.”
