SB 109-12: Habeas Corpus Amplification Act (Passed)

[Joseph Cao]

HABEAS CORPUS AMPLIFICATION ACT

Senate Bill
to grant habeas relief if bad evidence is discovered after a conviction

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

A. A person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty in a federal Atlasian prison, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

B. A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

1. False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration.

2. False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.

3. New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.

4. Expert opinion testimony, including the expert’s conclusion or the facts upon which their opinion is based, that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, regardless of whether it was offered by the prosecution or defense, was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial.
C. Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in herein is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to this act.

D. This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies available by law.

E. For purposes of this act:

1. “false evidence” includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by scientific research, including scientific research that existed at the time the expert’s testimony was given or later scientific research or technological advances. The results of a polygraph test shall be considered false evidence.

2. “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.

F. This act does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion.

G. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

Sponsor: Deadprez
Status: Final Vote

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.

[Saint Milei]

Pretty simple. Respects rights of the accused and it's strong enough where we can get bipartisan support. If anyone has concerns, say so quick so we can get a move on this

[Joseph Cao]

I'm mainly interested in knowing a) the extent to which these avenues of recourse already exist for Atlasian prisoners under current law, and b) if there are any ways to ease implementation for, say, prisoners unaware of new or falsified evidence in the event that this does become law.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A. They do not exist this cleanly. A federal prisoner can only succeed on a habeas petition if they file within a year of their conviction or if the they can prove actual prejudice against them. Some federal courts have ruled that actual prejudice must be based on a new constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court hasnt resolved the issue so until then a presioner would be unlikely to win on a junk science claim.

B. At the very least by allowing this retroactively prisoners have time to wait for FOIAs and discovery to hopefully find the proof needed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I certainly support this, especially considering how this came up in April.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As AG I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of this bill. Atlasians' constitutional rights are part of what makes this Republic great.

[Joseph Cao]

I certainly support this, especially considering how this came up in April.

You know, that is an excellent point, I hadn't considered the implications for actual gameplay, although who knows how many people would actually be able to make use of it at any given time.

Fully support this bill obviously but this lends an additional dimension to it.

[Saint Milei]

Since there are no concerns so far, motion for final vote

[Joseph Cao]

Sure, 24 hours to object.

(Watch me return to this early on Sunday morning because my time management has gone crock up anyway.)

[Joseph Cao]

Good news: not Sunday morning. Bad news: not Sunday morning.

HABEAS CORPUS AMPLIFICATION ACT

Senate Bill
to grant habeas relief if bad evidence is discovered after a conviction

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

A. A person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty in a federal Atlasian prison, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

B. A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

1. False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration.

2. False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.

3. New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.

4. Expert opinion testimony, including the expert’s conclusion or the facts upon which their opinion is based, that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, regardless of whether it was offered by the prosecution or defense, was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial.
C. Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in herein is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to this act.

D. This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies available by law.

E. For purposes of this act:

1. “false evidence” includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by scientific research, including scientific research that existed at the time the expert’s testimony was given or later scientific research or technological advances. The results of a polygraph test shall be considered false evidence.

2. “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.

F. This act does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion.

G. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

A final vote is now open on this bill for 96 hours – Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[Kuumo]

Aye

[Dr. MB]

Aye

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

AYE

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Aye

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Aye.

[AGA]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Saint Milei]

Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Lincoln: Vacant
Northeast: AGA – Aye
Great Lakes: Cao – Aye

Frémont: Kuumo – Aye
Mountain West: AFE – Aye
Pacific: Western Democrat – Not voting

South: Mr. R – Aye
Upper South: Yankee – Aye
Deep South: Muad'dib – Not voting

STV1: MB – Aye
STV2: Weatherboy – Aye
STV3: Deadprez – Aye
STV4: West_Midlander – Aye
STV5: Sestak – Not voting
STV6: OSR – Not voting
STV7: Blairite – Aye
STV8: Adam – Not voting
STV9: Liam – Aye

By a vote of 12-0-0-5, the bill passes.

[Joseph Cao]

HABEAS CORPUS AMPLIFICATION ACT

Senate Bill
to grant habeas relief if bad evidence is discovered after a conviction

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

A. A person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty in a federal Atlasian prison, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

B. A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

1. False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration.

2. False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.

3. New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.

4. Expert opinion testimony, including the expert’s conclusion or the facts upon which their opinion is based, that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, regardless of whether it was offered by the prosecution or defense, was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial.
C. Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in herein is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to this act.

D. This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies available by law.

E. For purposes of this act:

1. “false evidence” includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by scientific research, including scientific research that existed at the time the expert’s testimony was given or later scientific research or technological advances. The results of a polygraph test shall be considered false evidence.

2. “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.

F. This act does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion.

G. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

Passed 12-0-0-5 in the Atlasian Senate assembled,


Joseph Cao, president pro tempore