Measure that amends Florida's compensation law for the wrongfully incarcerated passes Senate
Bills to broaden compensation for the wrongfully convicted are moving through the Florida Legislature. ()
A bill that would make it much easier for individuals wrongfully incarcerated to receive compensation has cleared the Florida Senate, and needs just one final vote in the House before going to Gov. Ron DeSantis' desk.
The measure sponsored by Northeast Florida Republican Sen. Jennifer Bradley (SB 130) makes changes to a 2008 state law that was designed to provide financial compensation for individuals wrongfully convicted of a crimes.
That legislation called for eligible exonerees to receive $50,000 for each year they were wrongfully incarcerated, capped at $2 million. However, since its passage, only five exonerees have actually received such compensation, due to a 'clean hands' provision that bans people who have had earlier, unrelated felonies from filing compensation claims — the only such restriction of its type in the country.
Bradley's bill would remove the clean-hands provision. It also would extend the filing deadline for those who have been exonerated from 90 days to two years, and allow a wrongfully incarcerated person both to bring a civil lawsuit and file for compensation under the 2008 law.
However, a claimant would have to repay the state if he or she receives monetary awards both under the 2008 law and through a civil lawsuit.
Eighteen exonerees have been denied compensation because of the clean-hands provision — 'totally, 300 plus years of lost liberty,' Bradley told her colleagues on Thursday.
Since 1989, 90 people in Florida have been exonerated or released from incarceration as a result of post-conviction DNA testing, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.
'Each of us has an incredible honor to represent our constituents, and part of that privilege of being able to come up here and represent our constituents is the duty that comes with that to be able to right wrongs,' Bradley said. 'To be able to stand up for the people of the state of Florida who have been wronged, and this is that bill.'
Bradley thanked to two former state senators who worked on the bill nearly a decade ago — GOP Sen. Rob Bradley, her husband, and Tampa Democrat Arthenia Joyner.
'Sometimes the wheels of justice roll slowly, but nevertheless they arrive at a destination of justice,' said Tampa Bay area Democratic Sen. Darryl Rouson. 'This bill speaks of that to those 18 who have been denied.'
The measure's companion in the House (HB 59), filed by Tampa Bay Republican Traci Koster, passed unanimously in its third and final committee stop on Wednesday and will soon go to the full House for a vote.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he has no desire to fix his relationship with Musk, even after the former 'first buddy' deletes his X posts
President Donald Trump says he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk. He also said Musk would face "serious consequences" if he funds Democrats. Meanwhile, Musk deleted some of his most incendiary X posts on Saturday. It seems Elon Musk won't be President Donald Trump's "first buddy" again anytime soon. Trump told NBC News on Saturday that he has no plans to repair his relationship with Musk after it imploded this week. When asked if their relationship is done, Trump said, simply, "I would assume so, yeah." Trump said he doesn't intend to speak with Musk and said the tech billionaire was "disrespectful to the office of the President." "I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President," Trump said. The epic and very public fallout began after Musk criticized Trump's tax bill, which the president calls his "One Big Beautiful Bill." During Thursday's dramatic exchange, which took place mostly on the social media networks each billionaire owns, Trump threatened to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies. Musk shot back that Trump was in the so-called "Epstein files" in a now-deleted post. In the NBC interview on Saturday, Trump warned Musk against funding Democratic candidates running against GOP members voting in favor of the bill, saying there will be "serious consequences." "If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that," Trump said. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that." Last month, Musk said he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns in the future. He spent hundreds of millions in support of Trump in 2024. "If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it," Musk said at the Qatar Economic Forum last month. "I do not currently see a reason." Trump's remarks on Saturday came after Musk deleted some X posts from his account. He deleted the post referencing the Epstein files and a video he re-posted that appeared to show Trump partying with Epstein in the 1990s. Musk also deleted an X post in which he called a Trump comment an "obvious lie" and another post saying SpaceX would decommission its Dragon spacecraft "immediately." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider that passing the tax bill is the president's priority. "President Trump and the entire Administration will continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government on behalf of taxpayers, and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission," Leavitt said in a statement. Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment from BI. The repercussions from Musk and Trump's dispute were swift, affecting the price of Tesla stock and Dogecoin. A senior White House official told BI that Trump is now considering selling his Tesla. On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance said it was a "huge mistake" for Musk to "go after the president" during the newest episode of "This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von." "I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying," Vance said. "I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man, I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — that's Elon — to be at this war with the world's most powerful man." During the interview, Vance said he thinks everything will be fine between the pair if Musk "chills out a little bit." "Hopefully Elon figures it out and comes back into the fold," Vance said, adding that Trump had been a "little frustrated" with Musk's recent criticisms. "But I think he's been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine," Vance said. Musk responded to Vance's comment on X on Saturday, writing, simply, "Cool." Read the original article on Business Insider
