An act relating to compensation for wrongful convictions
H.564 creates and clarifies Vermont’s civil compensation process for people who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, then later exonerated. The bill states that compensation is available not only when exoneration follows DNA testing, but also when a conviction is reversed or vacated, charges are dismissed, a person is acquitted after a retrial, or a pardon is granted, so long as the claimant proves actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and did not fabricate evidence or commit perjury.
The bill sets out the procedure for bringing a claim against the State in Washington County Superior Court, with notice to the Attorney General and application of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure and Appellate Procedure. It also authorizes the Attorney General to settle claims and provides that the action survives the claimant’s death, allowing an estate representative to continue the case. The measure applies retroactively to exonerations occurring on or after July 1, 2007, and takes effect on passage.
If enacted, the bill would amend Vermont’s wrongful-conviction compensation statutes in 13 V.S.A. chapter 182 to broaden eligibility and clarify the legal standard for recovery. It would establish a statutory cause of action for eligible exonerees, define “actually innocent,” set a filing deadline, require notice to exonerees after reversal or pardon, and specify damages ranging from $30,000 to $60,000 per year of incarceration, plus possible economic losses, attorney’s fees, reintegration services, and up to 10 years of Medicaid-equivalent health coverage. Awards would generally be exempt from state taxes and not reduced by state incarceration-related costs.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed as a remedial and bipartisan-leaning justice reform, intended to compensate people who were wrongly imprisoned and to align compensation with a broader range of exoneration outcomes. The overall tone of the proposal is corrective and victim-focused rather than punitive or regulatory.
The main potential points of contention are the scope of eligibility and the cost to the State. The bill requires proof of actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, which may be viewed as a high threshold by claimants, while the State may be concerned about exposure to damages, retroactive claims dating back to 2007, and the inclusion of health coverage and reintegration services. Another possible issue is the exclusion of people who fabricated evidence or committed perjury, which narrows eligibility and may lead to disputes over what conduct disqualifies a claimant. Because no discussion transcript is available, no specific legislator or stakeholder positions can be identified.