SF0101 amends Wyoming’s post-conviction DNA testing statute to change the date used for determining when a convicted person must make a showing of due diligence before a court may order DNA testing. Under current law, a person convicted before July 1, 2008 is exempt from the due diligence requirement; the bill updates that cutoff date to a later date, tied to the amended statutory language, so that the due diligence standard applies based on the new conviction-date threshold. The bill keeps the existing exception that a failure to exercise due diligence may be excused if it resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel.
In practical terms, the bill affects criminal defendants seeking post-conviction DNA testing, courts reviewing those requests, and the administration of Wyoming’s post-conviction relief procedures. It narrows or expands the group of eligible petitioners depending on the new date threshold, and it preserves judicial discretion to deny testing where the request was not pursued diligently for strategic, tactical, or other non-excusable reasons. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends W.S. 7-12-303(d), the statute governing motions for post-conviction DNA testing, by changing the conviction-date cutoff that determines when a petitioner is exempt from proving due diligence. This alters the procedural requirements for certain inmates or defendants seeking DNA testing after conviction, while leaving intact the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel exception and the court’s authority to deny testing when due diligence was lacking for strategic or tactical reasons. The change primarily impacts criminal procedure, post-conviction relief litigation, defense counsel, prosecutors, and courts handling innocence-related DNA claims.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate unanimously, received a unanimous do-pass recommendation in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later passed the House unanimously after a House Judiciary recommendation to amend and do pass. The concurrence vote was also unanimous, indicating strong bipartisan agreement on the procedural update.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only notable issue is the technical policy choice of changing the conviction-date threshold for when due diligence must be shown, which affects who can access post-conviction DNA testing without meeting that procedural burden. Any concern would likely center on balancing finality of convictions against access to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence, but no recorded debate or dissent is provided in the materials.