HB3818 revises Illinois law governing compensation for wrongful convictions and related wrongful supervision. The bill amends the Court of Claims Act to give the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over claims for time unjustly served in state prison, county jail, on parole, on intensive supervised probation, or while required to register as a sex offender, where the person was later pardoned on innocence grounds or received a certificate of innocence. It replaces the current capped, discretionary award structure with mandatory compensation of $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration and $25,000 per year for wrongful parole, intensive supervised probation, or sex-offender registration, with prorated amounts for partial years.
The bill also expands and clarifies the certificate-of-innocence process in the Code of Civil Procedure. It allows petitions not only for people who were convicted and imprisoned, but also for those adjudicated delinquent in juvenile cases and those who served time or supervision in the other listed settings. It requires courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses when a certificate of innocence is granted, and it creates filing deadlines for juvenile-delinquency-based petitions: four years after enactment for older cases and two years after dismissal or acquittal for newer cases. The bill applies its compensation changes to claims pending on or filed after the effective date and takes effect immediately.
In practical terms, HB3818 would broaden eligibility for innocence-related relief and increase the amount of state compensation available to exonerees and others who were wrongfully subjected to criminal penalties or supervision. It would also shift the compensation framework from a maximum-award system to a fixed statutory formula, which would likely make awards more predictable and potentially larger for many claimants. Related statutes affected include the Court of Claims Act and Section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears oriented toward expanding remedies for wrongfully convicted people and juvenile petitioners, suggesting a generally reform-minded and claimant-friendly policy approach. Because no discussion or vote history is provided, any assessment of political sentiment is limited to the bill’s structure and stated purpose.
The main points of contention likely concern fiscal impact, the shift from discretionary capped awards to mandatory per-year payments, and the expansion of eligibility to juvenile delinquency adjudications and non-incarceration supervision such as parole, intensive supervised probation, and sex-offender registration. Potential opponents may also question retroactive application to pending claims and the administrative burden of reopening older cases under the new filing deadlines, while supporters would likely emphasize fairness, compensation for proven innocence, and access to relief for a broader class of wrongfully affected people.
HB3818 would amend the Court of Claims Act and the certificate-of-innocence statute to expand who may seek relief and to standardize compensation for wrongful incarceration and related supervision. It would require the Court of Claims to award fixed amounts for qualifying claims, broaden the categories of wrongful state-imposed custody or supervision covered, and require attorney’s fees and costs in certificate-of-innocence cases. The bill would affect exonerees, juvenile petitioners, and the State’s fiscal exposure by increasing and making more predictable the compensation owed in successful claims.
No committee transcripts or vote history are available, so there is no recorded legislative debate to summarize. The bill’s text reflects a strongly remedial, pro-exoneration policy approach, indicating likely support from advocates for wrongful-conviction compensation and innocence reform. At the same time, the mandatory payment formula and broader eligibility suggest that fiscal and administrative concerns would be the most likely sources of skepticism or opposition.
The likely areas of contention are the cost to the State, the replacement of capped discretionary awards with mandatory per-year compensation, and the expansion of eligibility to people on parole, intensive supervised probation, sex-offender registration, and juvenile delinquency cases. Opponents may also object to retroactive application for pending claims and the reopening of older juvenile cases, while supporters would argue the bill corrects undercompensation and closes gaps in existing innocence-relief law.