Relating to wrongful conviction; declaring an emergency.
SB 1007 revises Oregon’s wrongful-conviction compensation law. It updates the standards and procedures for filing a petition against the state by a person who was convicted of a felony, imprisoned, and later had the conviction reversed or vacated and the charges dismissed, was acquitted on retrial, or received a gubernatorial pardon. The bill also expands and clarifies what counts as proof of innocence, including certain court findings and recognition by a nationally recognized exoneration registry, and it expressly includes some juvenile adjudications that resulted in custody in the compensation framework.
The measure changes how wrongful-conviction claims are processed and paid. It requires the Attorney General to review petitions after service, consider evidence from both sides, and issue a written determination within 180 days. If the claim meets the statutory requirements, the Attorney General may not oppose the petition or the resulting judgment. The bill preserves and adjusts the compensation structure, including annual payments, possible lump-sum payment, attorney fees and costs, reimbursement of restitution and related sums, and optional additional awards for education, health coverage, and reentry-related services. It also adds a certificate of innocence, requires sealing of associated convictions and arrest records, and keeps compensation excluded from gross income.
SB 1007 would amend ORS 30.657 and 30.659 and add new procedural requirements for wrongful-conviction petitions. It changes notice rules, extends or clarifies filing and service procedures, and applies the new standards to pending cases without final judgment as well as future petitions. The bill also directs annual reporting by the Attorney General to the Legislature and makes the act effective July 15, 2025, under an emergency clause.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is favorable. The Senate committee advanced the bill unanimously, voting 6-0 to do pass with amendments and referring it to Ways and Means, which suggests broad support for improving compensation and relief for wrongfully convicted people. The absence of recorded opposition in the committee materials also points to a consensus-oriented approach.
The main points of contention appear to be technical and procedural rather than ideological. The bill tightens and clarifies the evidentiary standards for proving innocence, including how to treat nonunanimous-jury reversals, pardons, registry-based exonerations, and unexplained physical evidence. It also raises practical questions about state fiscal exposure, the Attorney General’s review obligations, and the interaction between compensation awards and other civil recoveries, but no explicit opposition is shown in the available discussion record.
The bill amends Oregon’s wrongful-conviction compensation statutes, primarily ORS 30.657 and 30.659, and adds a new Attorney General review and reporting process. It broadens and clarifies eligibility, proof, and procedural rules for petitions, creates a mandatory certificate of innocence and record-sealing requirement for successful petitioners, and preserves the state’s obligation to pay compensation, fees, reimbursements, and certain reentry-related benefits. It also applies the new rules to pending cases without final judgment and takes effect on July 15, 2025, under an emergency clause.
The available voting history indicates strong support for the bill. The Senate committee voted 6-0 to advance SB 1007 with amendments and send it to Ways and Means, suggesting the measure was viewed positively and as a policy improvement to the wrongful-conviction compensation process. No committee testimony is provided, so the record does not show organized opposition or divided sentiment.
The likely areas of debate are the bill’s revised innocence standards, including reliance on registry-based exonerations, treatment of nonunanimous-jury reversals, and the requirement that no unexplained physical evidence of guilt remain. Another possible point of contention is the fiscal and administrative burden on the state, since the bill requires Attorney General review within 180 days, mandates compensation and ancillary benefits, and can include record sealing and certificate-of-innocence relief. However, the available record does not show any named opponents or specific objections in committee.