Transcript Highlights:

• As I've traveled throughout the district in the state, if you ask someone do you own your own DNA and
• First, it recognizes an individual's DNA. as protected property right under the Texas Property Code.
• Senate Bill 315 relating to a property right in DNA. There is an amendment. Following amendment.
• The floor amendment does one thing, it ensures that DNA DNA or genetic information collected can only
• Secretary, read the caption. 315 relating to a property right in DNA. Mr.

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1072 establishes the expedited DNA testing grant program within FDLE.
• Many law enforcement agencies do not have dedicated DNA testing funding in their budgets.
• Allison Nunez, DNA Labs International, speaking for? I waive in support.
• Nunez, DNA Labs International, speaking for? I waive in support. Thank you.
• This is not speculative innovation, but an analysis... Modernizing emergency responses.

Summary: The committee heard and voted on a long series of criminal justice, public safety, victim protection, and regulatory bills. Several measures were reported favorably, including SB 1374 on school district reporting requirements, SB 1378 on restitution for leaving the scene of a crash, SB 1072 creating an expedited DNA testing grant program, SB 1140 establishing a Hillsborough County criminal offender substance abuse pilot program, SB 1266 revising public records protections for crime victims and certain law enforcement identities, SB 1546 delaying and refining background screening requirements for athletic coaches, SB 1430 on post-judgment execution proceedings related to terrorism victims, SB 1444 making a broad set of criminal justice changes, SB 240 on domestic and dating violence protections, SB 606 clarifying public lodging and food service removal procedures for nonpaying guests, SB 1450 giving law enforcement discretion in arrests involving people with significant medical conditions, SB 44 increasing penalties for impersonating law enforcement with unauthorized red or blue lights, SB 1000 expanding court-ordered sealing options, SB 1400 requiring platforms to remove altered sexual depictions, and SB 1696 addressing rideshare impersonation and transit service rules. Many of these bills were amended before final passage, often with strike-all amendments or technical changes, and several had support from law enforcement, advocacy groups, or industry representatives. Testimony was generally supportive on the public safety and victim-protection bills, with speakers emphasizing faster DNA testing, better protections for domestic violence survivors, clearer rules for hotel and motel operators, and stronger tools against fraud, impersonation, and trafficking. Some bills drew notable concerns or opposition. SB 1266 prompted questions about whether a 72-hour cooling-off period for officer identities could be extended too broadly, while SB 606 drew concerns that the bill could affect families living in hotels or extended stays during the housing affordability crisis. SB 1444 generated discussion about false reporting language, off-duty carry for prosecutors and judges, and the scope of automatic sealing changes. SB 1000’s expanded sealing relief received broad support but was narrowed by amendments excluding certain offenses such as DUI and indecent exposure. The most contentious measure was SB 1804, which would create a capital offense for trafficking a child under 12 or a mentally incapacitated person for sexual exploitation. The sponsor argued it targets the most severe trafficking cases and includes safeguards such as excluding minors from capital punishment and preserving life imprisonment if the capital procedure is invalidated. Opponents, including the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, argued the death penalty is unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes, costly, and ineffective, and committee members raised concerns about whether the bill would incentivize traffickers to kill victims to avoid identification. Debate also touched on broader concerns about the death penalty’s constitutionality and whether life imprisonment is a more severe punishment. The transcript ends during that debate, without a final vote on SB 1804 included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's an analysis. And I would also like to thank opposition... Amendment—that's an analysis.
• Like, so you cannot consider it in your analysis.
• Your DNA is the same. And so it's something that is definitely...
• Your DNA is the same.
• Your DNA is the same.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:00.800> docket<00:10:01.240> is my DNA docket is my DNA docket is exploding<
• Are we getting this from DNA cases? And that's not reflected in the report that we have.
• Are we getting this from DNA cases? And that's not reflected in the report that we have.
• Are we getting this from DNA cases? And that's not reflected in the report that we have.
• Are we looking for a solution for all of them, or just DNA cases, or similar?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees. Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases. Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers. The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 340 adds a new section to the DNA Identification Act.
• If I understand this correctly, this is capturing the DNA upon death, is that correct?
• into CODIS after death, the Administrative Center shall enter the DNA of a person collected pursuant
• And then what happens to that DNA if there are no charges? The DNA is destroyed?
• The DNA is not destroyed; it's collected.

Transcript Highlights:

• No DNA database may be maintained.
• What kind of DNA testing is available in the market?
• Is that just for the DNA collecting device?
• DNA testing pilot program.
• Today, it's border DNA testing.

Bills: HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19, HB256, HCR19

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, illegal employment, state contracts, government entities, license suspension, immigration compliance, state grant funding, E-Verify, compliance, penalties, immigration, government contracts, employee status, state contractors, E-verify program, legally present, employment practices, legal services, public money

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know how long it's taken to get DNA back.
• It's taking a year or a year and a half because we do not have lab analysis analysts.
• Madam Chair, and represent of an expert, so the DNA experts are the people, of an expert.
• So the DNA experts are the people at the lab, they're the same ones testing the rape kits.
• But it's just a problem we're having right now with every DNA case all over the state.

Bills: HB99, HJR5, HM39, HB206, HB213, SB41, SB153, SB165, SB261, SB264

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, there has been significant advancements in DNA testing that has also assisted us that is available
• Um, and a lot of that is because of the, the advancements in DNA testing and, um, that are available,
• There's many programs out there that can assist in analyzing small amounts of DNA data.
• And in those, um, What that does is it allows, if there's significant enough enough DNA of a potential
• Not be good to get, and maybe you're doing this, getting those DNAs into the CODIS system, regardless

Transcript Highlights:

• So, traditional DNA...
• Traditional DNA is: we recover DNA from a scene, and then later we find a suspect, we get a sample from
• I did my DNA, I found out my family tree, I said, yes, I want to move that DNA over to Jetmatch, which
• :10.280> scene, DNA is uh we recover DNA from a scene, DNA is uh we recover DNA from a scene,
• <03:50:14.880> in greater community by putting my DNA in greater community by putting my DNA

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You're taking the data collected from a rape victim and running against a database that's kept for DNA
• Um, and a lot of that is because of the, the advancements in DNA testing and, um, that are available,
• There's many programs out there that can assist in analyzing small amounts of DNA data.
• Not be good to get, and maybe you're doing this, getting those DNAs into the CODIS system, regardless
• In fact, I recall when we, uh, finally put into law the, the DNA samples as a requirement of a, of a

Transcript Highlights:

• It allows for the analysis of those who have completed training in early detection and have completed
• Requiring a statewide workforce analysis every two years and creating strategies to recruit, train, and
• Next, we will take up Tab 10: Senate Bill 1072 on expedited DNA testing.
• Senate Bill 1072 establishes the expedited DNA testing grant program within FDLE.
• Many law enforcement agencies do not have dedicated DNA testing funding in their budgets.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis.
• evidence was not relevant to the DNA evidence was not relevant to the case. case. case.
• biological material suitable for DNA biological material suitable for DNA analysis. analysis. analysis
• We already swabbed it for DNA.
• We already swabbed it for DNA.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills related to bribery and public corruption. On SB 2249, which would increase penalties for bribery under certain circumstances, the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office and Honolulu Police Department supported the measure, arguing that Hawaii’s current class B felony penalty is probationable and too weak to secure cooperation in corruption cases, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Snyder decision narrowed federal bribery prosecutions. The Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that elevating bribery to a class A felony and making it non-probationable was excessive, overbroad, and would remove judicial discretion. Multiple individuals also testified in support. Committee members questioned the prosecutor about removing deferred acceptance of plea provisions and asked HPD about the $20,000 threshold; the prosecutor said alternative charges could still be used in plea bargaining, and HPD said the threshold aligns with first-degree theft. The committee also discussed how current law tolls the bribery statute of limitations while an official remains in office, with the prosecutor explaining it can extend up to six years total. The committee then heard SB 2494, which would set a nine-year statute of limitations for bribery offenses. The Public Defender opposed the extension, saying the justification based on the length of federal investigations was too broad and that bribery already has a longer limitations period than most felonies. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill, saying bribery cases often involve coordination with federal investigators, that federal and state evidence-gathering methods may differ, and that a longer period would help ensure admissible evidence and allow state prosecution when federal law no longer applies. Members asked whether there were public examples of cases lost to the current limitations period; the prosecutor said he was not aware of any publicly available examples, but maintained nine years was a reasonable period. The committee also considered SB 2737, which would create a misdemeanor for failure by a state or county elected official to report bribery. The Department of the Attorney General offered comments and suggested changing the term to “public servant” for consistency with existing law. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the intent but warned the reporting requirement could create Fifth Amendment issues for witnesses who might otherwise be useful in grand jury proceedings. The bill drew broad public support, with 33 supporters and no opposition noted. Finally, the committee took up SB 3071, which revises sex trafficking and promoting prostitution statutes by redefining “profits from prostitution” and adding an affirmative defense for certain lawful transactions. The Public Defender opposed the measure, saying it still could reach people without the required criminal intent and that the affirmative defense language could be applied unevenly. The Attorney General and Honolulu Prosecutor supported the bill, saying it better addresses concerns raised by the State v. Ibarra decision while closing loopholes that allow traffickers to disguise profits as loans or gifts. The prosecutor emphasized that traffickers are sophisticated and can structure transactions to evade current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• We all have seen that the increase in what's happening with our phones, with our computers, with DNA
• A DNA case might have been a sexual assault or a homicide. Now we have touch DNA.
• years ago with our computers uh with DNA years ago with a<00:59:03.480> DNA<00:59:04.079>
• case might have been a sexual a DNA case might have been a sexual assault<00:59:06.240> or<00
• we have um cold cases that are touch DNA we have um cold cases that are now<00:59:12.319> brought

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee met to approve the January 16 minutes and then heard a budget presentation from State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba on behalf of the Minnesota judicial branch. Shorba described the courts’ structure, mission, and workload, noting 322 judges, about 2,800 staff, roughly 1 million district court filings annually, and a current budget of about $479 million. He emphasized the branch’s constitutional obligation to provide fair and timely access to justice and said the courts are funded almost entirely through legislative appropriations. He also highlighted recent accomplishments made possible by prior legislative funding, including eliminating the pandemic felony and gross misdemeanor backlog, expanding remote and hybrid hearings, improving courtroom technology, sustaining treatment courts, and increasing pay for interpreters and psychological examiners. Shorba outlined the judicial branch’s 2026–27 budget request, which he said totals a 12% increase over the starting biennial base. Major requests included $77.3 million in 2026–27 and $104 million in 2028–29 for a 6% judicial salary increase and related compensation costs; $5.1 million in 2026–27 and $1.76 million in 2028–29 for digital accessibility compliance with new federal ADA rules; $4 million in 2026–27 and $800,000 in 2028–29 to modernize justice partner access to court records; $7.2 million in 2026–27 to raise pay for contract psychological examiners; and $18 million in 2026–27 to increase juror pay from $20 to $100 per day and align mileage rates with federal rates. He also discussed ongoing funding needs for interpreter services, jury costs, cybersecurity, and other statutorily required court services, saying temporary funding provided in the prior session will expire and that permanent support is needed. Members asked questions about treatment courts, employee bargaining, and mental health competency issues. Representative Eric requested more detail on funding for newly launched and existing treatment courts, and Shorba said many treatment courts begin with federal grants before transitioning to state support after about three years. He confirmed the judicial branch negotiates its own employee contracts rather than the executive branch doing so, and said the branch has three unions plus many unrepresented employees. On mental health and competency, Shorba said the branch is focused on obtaining timely psychological evaluations and is not responsible for treatment services themselves, but acknowledged a shortage of examiners and treatment beds and said a related competency board would be testifying the following week. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adoption of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Presenting a bill for Senator MacLEAN that is have 5 SB 1072 expedited DNA testing.
• Chair SB 1072 establishes the expedite DNA Testing Grant program within FDLE.
• The program will provide dedicated funding to sheriff's offices to assist with DNA evidence testing.
• Allison Nunez, Allison Nunez, DNA Labs International speaking for and we thank you.
• The 2026 deadline ensures thorough analysis while maintaining urgency.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• sensitive data through government IDs and/or biometric scans and technologies that rely on AI and facial analysis
• sensitive data through government IDs and/or biometric scans and technologies that rely on AI and facial analysis

Bills: HF4502, HF3388, HF4106, HF400, HF4138, HF4118, HF4203

Keywords: trusted contact, financial exploitation, elder abuse, elder financial abuse, fraud prevention, financial institution, banking, credit union, broker-dealer, account security, dormant account, consumer protection, scam, suspicious activity, protective services, law enforcement reporting, Minnesota Statutes chapter 45A, HF3388, Minnesota premium security plan, reinsurance

Transcript Highlights:

• So, after the actuarial analysis, we've come to this point today where the plan can be fully funded and
• But, yeah, so their $50 million would compare to $34 million on our actuarial analysis.

Bills: HB1784, HB1245, HB1268, HB2116, HB2193, HB2206, HB1739, HB1889, HB1904, HB3172, HB4225, HB4352, HB3625, HB4263

Keywords: education reform, local control, student outcomes, curriculum changes, school funding, retirement, pension, public employees, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, benefits, survivorship, contribution rates, disability retirement, deferred option plan, service credit, contributions, distributions, HB2116, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, OLERS

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and this bill just simply tries to provide some level of visibility on the bill impact analysis that
• Some level of visibility on the bill impact analysis that the PUC does.
• thought behind that response is that when the intent of the measure appears to want to look into the analysis
• You guys gave a PUC gave you guys... the analysis that's done within the the analysis that's done within

Bills: SB2033, SB2487, SB2497, SB2471, SB2829

Keywords: renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, electric utility rates, ratemaking, performance-based regulation, performance-based incentives, performance incentive mechanisms, revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, reward and penalty mechanisms, alternative ratemaking

Summary: The committee first reconvened on SB 2471 and SB 2829, both relating to the powers of artificial persons. After discussion with the Attorney General’s office and a prior Q&A period, the chair said the committee would defer decision-making again, with the intent to return with amended versions of both bills that could gain support from the administration and its lawyers. The measures were deferred to Tuesday, February 10, 2026, in Conference Room 229 at 9:30 a.m. The committee then took up SB 2180, relating to deposits of public funds. Members noted late testimony from the prior day’s joint hearing with the Housing Committee and moved to pass the bill out with amendments, including a defective effective date. The motion carried unanimously among those voting: the chair, vice chair, Senator Lamosao, and Senator Awa voted aye; Senator McKelvey was excused. The measure was adopted. A joint hearing followed on SB 2033, relating to renewable energy and a streamlined grid-ready homes interconnection process. The PUC supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the time, resources, and stakeholder input needed to establish the proposed process, and asked for clarification of terms such as “grid-ready homes” and the role of HERA. Hawaiian Electric said it supported the intent but opposed the proposed process and HERA funding use. The Hawaii Solar Energy Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that faster interconnection is needed to meet rooftop solar goals and lower costs over time. Testimony totaled 27 in support, two in opposition, and four with comments. Members questioned costs, consumer protections, and whether the bill would burden low- and moderate-income households; the bill’s supporters said amendments could clarify the definition of grid-ready homes and add guardrails, while acknowledging that upfront costs and interconnection costs would still need to be addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the past, have we done a thorough analysis or a recommendation, if you will?
• I know that analysis is out there. I don't know what it tells us today.
• An example is the first couple of days we used nuclear DNA that you can take with a...
• At that point, nuclear DNA is not possible; we need mitochondrial DNA.
• The backlog includes rape kits, DNA, and drug analysis.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To the second part of your question, the DNA collection of lawfully owed DNA, we're fortunate that we
• Once we have that in DNA COP, we work very diligently to ensure that we update DNA COP.
• up if they owe DNA.
• O DNA that we identify them and we work diligently to collect it.
• And the cost—one cost to take the genealogical DNA can run $10,000.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held its sixth public hearing on the Governor’s H-2 budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, focused on public safety and judiciary agencies, at the Foxborough Community Center. After opening remarks and local welcomes, the committee heard first from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, led by Secretary Gina Kwan, who outlined a $1.72 billion budget, up $69.8 million from FY26. She said the proposal emphasizes core operations, readiness, and partnerships with municipalities, and highlighted work on firearms-law implementation, State Police reform, DOC reentry efforts, hate-crimes prevention, emergency response, and planning for major events including the World Cup. Members also raised concerns about DNA backlog reporting, State Police academy boxing and training standards, ICE communication, disaster relief funding, crime lab staffing, EMS placement, and diversity in public safety leadership. Several exchanges focused on specific operational issues. Secretary Kwan and her team said the State Police are tracking the influx of forensic work from local sheriffs, that the boxing program remains suspended pending an IACP review and likely will not return in its prior form, and that EOPS has no direct communication with ICE but supports law-enforcement coordination where appropriate. On disaster preparedness, officials said the new disaster relief fund is being developed with MEMA and A&F, currently capitalized at $14 million with another $14 million expected, though members urged a more permanent funding source. On the crime lab, staff said the roughly $4.5 million increase is intended to cover core operations and a structural funding gap rather than expand services. The secretary also said EOPS is not ready to absorb OEMS from DPH at this time, though she would keep an open mind. The committee then heard from district attorneys, led by Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden, who said the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association is seeking a 10% increase in operating budgets, including about $16.7 million for staffing salaries, to recruit and retain prosecutors, advocates, and support staff. He said the request reflects rising workload and the need to keep the criminal justice system functioning efficiently and fairly. The hearing was recessed briefly after the district attorneys’ opening remarks, with additional testimony expected to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh I've used the DNA uh I've used the DNA uh<00:07:55.840> statute<00:07:56.479> as
• in the DNA statute. in the DNA statute.
• DNA testing, and there are other kinds of scientific evidence, like bitemark evidence, like fiber analysis
• It has to do with the DNA. There's nothing confusing about the DNA.
• Um also DNA is not conditions.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 141, which would create a narrow exception to New Hampshire’s three-year deadline for motions for a new trial when a petitioner has newly discovered evidence, new forensic testing, or new scientific understanding. The prime sponsor’s representative and advocates from the Innocence Project and New England Innocence Project argued the bill is needed to help wrongfully convicted people access the courts, noting that exonerations often take many years and that outdated forensic science has contributed to wrongful convictions. The chair also said he had drafted a proposed amendment for committee review, but it had not yet been formally submitted. Witnesses supporting the bill emphasized that the measure would not guarantee relief, only allow a petition to be filed and reviewed under existing standards. They discussed examples such as arson science, explaining that some convictions were based on forensic methods later shown to be unreliable. Committee members asked about the scope of habeas corpus, whether the bill would create a new cause of action, and whether additional screening or pleading requirements should be added. The supporters said they would be open to requiring a petitioner to plead innocence, but opposed adding more burdensome preliminary procedures or counsel requirements at the filing stage. Thomas Farardi, from the Attorney General’s Office, testified in opposition or with caution, saying the bill was a “solution looking for a problem” because existing habeas corpus and coram nobis procedures already provide avenues for relief, and prosecutors can act when credible new evidence arises. He argued the current draft could invite additional litigation and create a new cause of action, and said he favored more screening before cases proceed. The discussion also touched on whether the statute applies in criminal cases, the current three-year limitation in RSA 526:4, and questions about posthumous petitions and petitions by deported individuals. No vote or executive action was taken during the hearing.