Criminal procedure; post-conviction DNA testing procedures of inmates, further provided
SB98 expands Alabama’s post-conviction DNA testing law. Under current law, only people convicted of capital offenses may seek court-ordered DNA testing of specific evidence, and motions are subject to existing filing deadlines. This bill would allow people convicted of either capital or non-capital offenses who are serving prison terms to request DNA testing, so long as the evidence is still available, was tied to the investigation or prosecution, and the requested testing could support a claim of factual innocence. It also removes the current time limits for filing such motions and states that no other limitations period should be used to bar consideration of a DNA-testing request.
The bill keeps the basic procedural framework for these requests: the circuit court must notify the state, preserve biological evidence, and determine whether the evidence is suitable for testing and whether the motion is aimed at proving innocence rather than delaying justice. If testing is ordered, it must be done by the Department of Forensic Sciences or another approved accredited laboratory, with costs generally paid by the petitioner unless the petitioner is indigent. If testing produces conclusive evidence of factual innocence, the petitioner may then seek post-conviction relief under Rule 32 within 60 days.
SB98 would amend Section 15-18-200 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and would also supersede conflicting provisions of Rule 32.2(c) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure to the extent of any conflict. The bill therefore broadens access to post-conviction forensic testing and changes how Alabama courts handle timing objections in DNA-based innocence claims. It is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-access to innocence testing, with the measure framed as a procedural safeguard for potentially wrongfully convicted people. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests the main policy balance is between expanding access for petitioners and preserving state interests in evidence integrity, finality, and preventing delay.
The most likely points of contention are the expansion from capital cases to non-capital cases and the elimination of filing deadlines, which could increase the number of petitions and reduce finality in criminal cases. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, wrongful-conviction review, and modern forensic science, while opponents may focus on administrative burden, litigation costs, and the risk of reopening older convictions.
SB98 would amend Alabama’s criminal procedure statute governing post-conviction DNA testing, Section 15-18-200, to extend eligibility from capital cases to non-capital inmates and to eliminate existing time limits for filing DNA-testing motions. It would also require courts to disregard conflicting limitations periods, including the referenced Rule 32.2(c) timing bar, when considering these motions. The bill affects incarcerated petitioners, prosecutors, circuit courts, the Department of Forensic Sciences, and state funding sources used to pay for indigent testing.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable, innocence-focused policy orientation, aiming to broaden access to DNA testing for incarcerated people who may be able to prove factual innocence. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure is presented as a reform to improve post-conviction review rather than as a punitive or restrictive change.
The main likely controversy is the bill’s removal of time limits for post-conviction DNA motions, which could be criticized as undermining finality and increasing the burden on courts and prosecutors. Another likely point of debate is the expansion of eligibility to non-capital offenses, since current law is narrower and this change could significantly increase the number of petitions. Supporters would likely argue that access to DNA testing should not depend on offense class or filing deadlines when factual innocence is at stake, while opponents may worry about costs, evidence preservation, and reopening long-settled convictions.