Oregon bill aims to fix broken system for wrongfully convicted
PORTLAND, Ore. () — Oregon lawmakers are reviewing a key bill to fix what they call a broken compensation system for people wrongfully convicted of crimes.
Exonerees and advocates are pushing for a faster, fairer process that gives justice to those who've waited far too long.
Advocates say Oregon's law to compensate the wrongfully convicted isn't working as intended.
Man slapped mother, spit on baby: Police
On Thursday, Oregon exonerees and advocates testified in support of Senate Bill 1007, including two of the state's 40 known wrongfully convicted individuals.
spent 27 years in prison for the murder of an Oregon Corrections director before new evidence led to his exoneration.
And Philip Scott Cannon served 11 years after being wrongfully convicted of a triple murder in 2000.
'I keep trying to figure out how many times I have to relive this nightmare,' Cannon said.
If this movement sounds familiar, it's because the state passed the Oregon Justice for Exonerees Act in 2022. But the state says it's only compensated four of those 40 exonerees.
Advocates say the new bill creates a swift path for wrongfully convicted individuals to receive justice and compensation — $65,000 for each year of imprisonment.
Janis Puracal leads the Forensic Justice Project in Portland, driven by a personal mission after her brother's wrongful conviction. Puracal said her brother was tallying the days he spent in prison.
'We don't know how many are in Oregon because you haven't actually found all of them,' Puracal said, while testifying on Thursday in Salem.
Despite the exonerations in Oregon, Puracal said none of the individuals received a certificate of innocence — a crucial step toward rebuilding a normal life.
'Even if you were exonerated, you still have a stigma that attaches to you for the rest of your life. Everywhere you go, everything that you do, there's a stigma on people who have been in prison,' Puracal said.
This bill directs the Oregon Department of Justice to consider new evidence, set deadlines for faster resolutions and clarify intent.
'This is an opportunity for us to make things right,' Puracal said.
St. Helens board meeting abruptly ends after outcry
In a statement, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield acknowledged the slow process and said the ODOJ is taking steps to improve efficiency and resolve cases more quickly:
'Yes, we acknowledge that the process to provide compensation to wrongly convicted people has been too slow. Under Attorney General Rayfield's direction, DOJ is now taking internal steps to improve efficiencies and have begun making progress on significant case resolutions. We take seriously the responsibility that we have as an agency to ensure access to justice through the wrongful conviction compensation process.'
SB 1007 would take effect immediately if it's passed because of an emergency declaration. First, there's a work session set for March 6. If it passes the Oregon Senate, it moves to the House. And if both chambers approve it, the governor would sign it into law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Get it done': Advocates push Oregon lawmakers to fund services for victims of abuse
Survivors, advocates and community leaders urge lawmakers to maintain funding to support domestic abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking and stalking survivors at a rally at Willson Park in Salem on June 4, 2025. (Courtesy of Amanda Rain, Clackamas Women's Services) Nonprofits that help survivors of sexual assault, and other crimes are urging Oregon lawmakers to maintain state funding for their jobs and the services they provide. As the Oregon Legislature juggles lower-than-anticipated revenue and the possibility of further reductions from federal funding cuts and decreased tax revenue related to tariffs and economic instability, advocacy workers and abuse survivors rallied at a park next to the Oregon Capitol on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to keep funding services for children and adult victims. Anything short of current funding would result in fewer staff members, fewer shelter beds, longer wait times and less support for survivors facing a crisis, Melissa Erlbaum, the executive director of Clackamas Women's Services, told the crowd. 'The private sector can't make up the gap,' said Allison Kelly, the CEO of Liberty House, a children's advocacy group based in Marion and Polk counties. The Oregon Department of Justice receives state and federal funding to facilitate grants to nonprofits to help survivors find safety, shelter, clothing and other resources needed in an emergency situation. This funding also goes toward hiring advocates at Oregon's colleges and universities who help students experiencing abuse, stalking or other crimes. 'It funds our jobs and it funds the people we help whether it's emergency housing or transportation, clothing vouchers, gas vouchers or relocation support,' Zoey Reyes, an advocate working at Haven from Domestic and Sexual Violence based in The Dalles told the Oregon Capital Chronicle. Advocates want lawmakers to pass two bills and one budget proposal. The latter is the Oregon Department of Justice's Policy Option Package 327, which would provide $22 million to tribal and local programs providing emergency shelter and safety services to abuse victims. This is the funding needed to maintain these services as its current capacity. Additionally, House Bill 3196 would appropriate $18.5 million from the state's general fund to the Oregon Department of Justice to give grants to the hundreds of Oregon nonprofits helping abuse victims find safety. These grants are usually federally funded through the Victims of Crime Act, a federal law enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to provide federal support for direct services to crime victims. However, this federal funding is being reduced by 42%, according to the Oregon Law Center. The bill would also distribute $3 million from the general fund to the Oregon CASA Network to make up for cuts in federal CASA funds, which abruptly had funding cancelled in April. Lastly, advocates are urging the passage of House Bill 3070, which would appropriate $400,000 from the state's general fund to the Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force, a statewide agency that certifies sexual assault nurse examiners. Both bills have yet to receive a vote in either chamber. 'It is absolutely important that we recognize that our legislators have a very difficult task of balancing this budget,' said Libra Forde, the executive director of the Women's Foundation of Oregon. 'But you were put there to do that. Get it done.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Yahoo
Oregon bill streamlining payout process for wrongfully convicted draws support
A new bill aiming to speed up and improve the compensation process for wrongfully convicted individuals is gaining support in the Oregon Legislature. Oregonians who have been wrongfully imprisoned can petition the state for tens of thousands of dollars in compensation and an official finding of innocence, a process that criminal justice reform advocates have long complained drags on and shortchanges exonerees. But a new bill introduced in February, Senate Bill 1007, aims to solve that problem by making it easier and faster to obtain compensation and findings of innocence from the state. The measure's provisions would set a deadline for an initial written decision on compensation at 180 days and allow the state to consider new evidence that comes to light after previous trials. 'We have not seen this kind of delay and fight everything to the death attitude across the country,' said Janis Puracal, executive director of the Portland-based Forensic Justice Project. 'Oregon is doing that entirely differently than what the rest of the country is doing.' Forty states currently have laws on the books ensuring a pathway for wrongfully convicted individuals to receive compensation. The measure unanimously cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, and it's currently sitting in the Joint Ways and Means committee, where it will be evaluated alongside other spending priorities in the state budget. The bill's fiscal impact is 'indeterminate,' according to a bill analysis, because the deadline will reduce legal costs but the bill may prompt more settlements and claims. Lawmakers have yet to set a hearing date. 'I'm hoping it can be made a priority,' said Sen. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, one of the bill's two primary authors, in an interview. Far too often, settlements with Oregon's Department of Justice have actually resulted in 'pennies on the dollar' for exonerees, she said. That process, she said, was fueled by 'hostile compliance' from former Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. 'They're not the party who committed the crime and therefore shouldn't have done the time,' she said. 'To execute what was intended is what we're trying to do now.' The new bill's thrust traces back to a 2022 law allowing those who have been wrongfully accused of a crime to receive reimbursements of $65,000 for each year of imprisonment and $25,000 additionally for each year of post-release supervision. So far, only eight of the 35 petitions for redress filed have been settled, according to an Oregon DOJ spokeswoman. The department successfully resisted two petitions by winning trials, and another eight were dismissed by the court system. The other 19 cases are still being negotiated, and the department estimates that another 35 cases are still awaiting petitions to be filed. SB 1007 would build on previous law by broadening the scope of proof acceptable for those cases to show innocence. Receiving clemency or pardon by the governor, or being listed on a 'nationally recognized' registry for exonerated individuals would all be ways to meet the requirements. The bill would also allow for petitions claiming losses in education through standardized college tuition and health insurance fees, as well as reimbursements for costs paid to expert witnesses. Under amendments passed in a March committee hearing, the legislation would go into effect July 15, mandating the Oregon Department of Justice and Attorney General Dan Rayfield review all cases, past and present, in which exonerees have petitioned for compensation. He would have 180 days to make a written determination. The campaign to reform Oregon's compensation process gained steam in the wake of several stories from formerly incarcerated activists who have pointed to new evidence after trial and procedural errors by authorities. One of them is Philip Scott Cannon. Cannon was arrested for a 1998 murder in Polk County on the eve of his oldest son's ninth birthday, he recalls. A jury found him guilty just two years later, and he received three life sentences. When he alleged his trial lawyer failed to adequately challenge prosecutors' bullet casing evidence in 2009, however, his conviction was vacated for a new trial. But forensic evidence had also gone missing in exchanges between local prosecutors and the Oregon Department of Justice, and it wasn't uncovered until 2011. A year later, the local district attorney announced that he would be reconsidering the evidence and whether to charge Cannon again. No charges have been filed. Twenty-four years after his arrest, Cannon filed in 2022 for compensation with the state, but he said nothing has come of the case. He already missed the birth of his youngest son while he was in custody awaiting trial. The first time he held him in his arms was in prison. He's spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on trials and litigation, seeing how his kids changed after being bullied in school amid the publicity of his case. 'There should be something that is done to make things right, at least some effort,' he said. 'Right now, it's been like pulling teeth to get the DOJ to do anything.' The Oregon DOJ and Rayfield have taken a neutral position on the legislation. But they have been providing input to the bill's supporters so that the law can be implemented if passed. 'We take our responsibility seriously when it comes to ensuring access to justice,' Oregon DOJ spokeswoman Jenny Hansson said in a statement. 'We've worked with advocates to craft clearer legal language in the bill and suggested ways to move away from time-consuming trials to a more streamlined administrative process, as some other states have done.' Thatcher said she supports the effort to streamline an administrative process, but the specifics need to be 'spelled out in statute' to avoid variation depending on different elected attorney general's enforcement policies. 'I want it to be as specific as it can be, while allowing them latitude in how they're going to execute it,' she said. 'What we did last time was allowing too much.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Yahoo
In suit against Trump administration tariffs, states argue president exceeded powers
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (right) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (left) hosted a town hall in Portland April 10, 2025. The two states attorneys general are among 23 Democratic attorneys general nationwide who have sued the federal government more than a dozen times in the first three months of Trump's second term. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) President Donald Trump is misusing a 1977 law and falsely claiming an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to the United States to justify costly tariffs on nearly all imported goods, lawyers representing Oregon and 11 other states told judges on Wednesday. Brian Simmonds Marshall, a senior assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice, argued Trump's tariffs should be stopped to three federal judges at the Court of International Trade in New York City as part of the case State of Oregon et al v. Donald J. Trump et al. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 11 other Democratic attorneys general filed that case — against Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its leader, Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and its leader, Peter Flores — on April 23. No decision in the case was made Wednesday. Rayfield at a news conference after the hearing said that judges had fast-tracked the case and are moving quickly. 'We anticipate that they're going to continue going down that road,' he said. Lawyers for Trump and the federal agencies insinuated that they would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if things did not go their way at the international trade court. Oregon and the other attorneys general — from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont — are challenging four of Trump's executive orders since April that have added fluctuating tariffs on most imports from China, Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on most all other goods imported from other countries to the U.S. Trump has said the tariffs will address the threat of fentanyl getting into the country and the U.S.'s trade deficit. The attorneys general have said Congress, not the president, has the sole authority to set tariff policy. In court on Wednesday, Marshall argued both that Trump is acting outside his authority and that a trade imbalance is not the 'unusual and extraordinary threat' Congress envisioned when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in 1977, which gives the president broad latitude on financial regulation and foreign policy in the event of a national emergency. 'There is no relationship between the problem the administration is trying to confront and the tariffs imposed,' he told the judges. By Trump's logic, he added, 'so long as the president wants to impose a tariff, he can do it for any reason, so long as he says 'it's an unusual and extraordinary threat.'' The judges seemed to agree with Marshall, questioning Brett Shumate, a lawyer from the U.S. Department of Justice, about why both Mexico and Canada have tariffs if nearly all the fentanyl smuggled into the U.S. comes from the Mexico-U.S. border. The judges referred to U.S. Customs and Protection data that found about 97% of fentanyl was intercepted at the country's southwest border — mostly carried by American citizens coming through legal ports of entry — and less than 1% was seized at the northern border. 'The president's executive orders have imposed tariffs equally against both countries. Does that seeming disparity affect our analysis?' one judge asked. Shumate gave a meandering response. 'What the president explained is that Mexican cartels have come to the northern border into Canada, and that is a threat, the expanding of the fentanyl operation in Canada, and the amount of fentanyl that comes across the northern border every year killing nine-and-a-half million Americans,' Shumate said. 'The president didn't want that problem to spiral out of control and come to the same level of a crisis that we have had at the southern (border).' Arguments that a trade deficit could equate to a national security emergency are also confounding to the attorneys general, Rayfield told reporters. 'Australia has had a trade deficit for more than 50 years. The United Kingdom has run a trade deficit for 40 years. These are fairly normal in economies that are focused on services, like ours is,' he said. Shumate argued to the judges that courts do not have the power to decide whether the president is right in declaring an emergency or whether the president's response to the emergency is correct. 'It's not the role of the court to second-guess whether the president has chosen the right means or adequately explained himself,' he said. Under the emergency economic powers act, Shumate said, Trump has broad leeway to address emergencies, with options ranging from investigating to cutting off goods from coming into the country. Rayfield said the argument that the courts have no role to play in checking the power of a president's use of the emergency economic powers act should 'enrage' people. 'If you take them at their word, he could declare an emergency for anything, right? And that would be unreviewable,' Rayfield said. Judge Jane Restani summed up the argument from Trump's lawyers as: 'Nothing is so crazy or unrelated that it could be stopped by the courts. Anything is allowed. Any declaration of emergency based on some crazy thing, any remedy, as crazy as it could be, it's all okay because the courts can't do anything.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
