A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 17.1-626.2, relating to criminal cases; prosecutorial misconduct; reasonable costs and attorney fees.
HB 981 would add a new section to the Virginia Code requiring a defendant to be awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees when a criminal case is dismissed and it is later determined that prosecutorial misconduct or an abuse of process occurred. The bill specifically covers situations where charges were filed without probable cause or with malicious intent. It applies whether the defendant had court-appointed counsel or hired private counsel.
In practical terms, the bill creates a fee-shifting remedy for defendants who were forced to defend against improperly brought criminal charges. It would not change the criminal charge itself, but it would create a civil-style financial consequence for misconduct in the prosecution of criminal cases, potentially affecting how prosecutors evaluate charging decisions and how dismissed cases are handled after findings of misconduct.
The bill would amend Title 17.1 of the Code of Virginia by adding § 17.1-626.2, creating a statutory right to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs in certain dismissed criminal cases involving prosecutorial misconduct or abuse of process. This would affect prosecutors, criminal defendants, and courts by adding a post-dismissal remedy and likely requiring judicial findings about misconduct, lack of probable cause, or malicious intent before fees are awarded. It could also increase exposure for localities or the Commonwealth to pay defense costs in qualifying cases.
The available context shows little recorded debate, but the bill was referred to the House Committee for Courts of Justice and ultimately left in committee, indicating it did not advance. The measure appears to be framed as a defendant-protection and accountability bill, suggesting support from those concerned about wrongful or abusive prosecutions. The lack of recorded votes or transcripts means there is no documented floor-level sentiment, but the committee outcome suggests the proposal did not gain sufficient support to move forward.
The main point of contention is likely whether the bill would appropriately deter prosecutorial misconduct or instead create additional litigation and financial liability for the state and local governments. Opponents may be concerned about the difficulty of proving misconduct, abuse of process, or malicious intent, and about the potential for fee awards in cases where prosecutorial decisions are later second-guessed. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness to defendants who incur legal expenses because of improper charging decisions and the need for accountability when cases are dismissed for misconduct.