HB 2164
In CommitteeHouse
Postconviction DNA testing
Reducing litigation costs by removing barriers to postconviction DNA testing.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill makes it easier for currently incarcerated people in Washington to get postconviction DNA testing of crime scene evidence if they believe it could prove their innocence. It creates a presumption in favor of granting testing requests and shifts the burden to the state to justify denying them. It also clarifies procedures and deadlines to reduce delays and litigation costs.
- Establishes a legal presumption that postconviction DNA testing should be granted if a convicted person shows the test could support a claim of innocence.
- Requires courts to grant DNA testing motions unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the test could not demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.
- Sets a 30-day deadline for the state to oppose a motion; if it does not respond, the court must automatically grant the motion.
- Allows courts to appoint counsel (at their discretion) for indigent defendants solely to prepare and file a DNA testing motion.
- Mandates that DNA testing be conducted by the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory, with victim contact handled through victim/witness units.
- Requires preservation of biological evidence and samples under existing evidence preservation laws (chapter 5.70 RCW) and court rules.
Who is affected
- Currently incarcerated individuals convicted of felonies — Currently incarcerated individuals convicted of felonies who believe DNA testing of evidence could support a claim of innocence or challenge their sentence enhancement.
- Indigent (low-income) defendants — People who cannot afford a lawyer but need legal help to file for postconviction DNA testing; the court may appoint counsel for this narrow purpose.
- Prosecutors — State prosecutors and local prosecutors who must respond to DNA testing motions and may need to argue against testing if they believe it would not support innocence.
- State courts — Courts and judges who must review and rule on DNA testing motions, including applying new legal standards and managing case timelines.
- Crime victims and their families — Victims and their families, who may be contacted through victim/witness units if DNA testing leads to new developments in the case.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The presumption in favor of granting testing and the state’s heightened burden (clear and convincing evidence that testing *could not* demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis) significantly strengthens due process rights for incarcerated individuals by making it far easier to access potentially exonerating evidence—reducing wrongful incarceration.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)By streamlining access to DNA testing and reducing delays, the bill helps ensure that the true perpetrator is identified and prosecuted when new testing reveals exculpatory evidence—enhancing public safety through more accurate outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)The ability to appoint counsel for indigent defendants to file DNA testing motions—even if only for that narrow purpose—addresses a critical access-to-justice gap, ensuring that low-income incarcerated people are not procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Mandating preservation of biological evidence under existing law (chapter 5.70 RCW) prevents degradation or loss of critical physical evidence, preserving the possibility of future testing and reducing the risk of irreversible injustice due to evidence mishandling.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)The bill promotes transparency and responsible use of taxpayer funds by encouraging full review of evidence, which can prevent prolonged litigation over access to testing and reduce long-term costs associated with maintaining wrongful convictions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d)
Potential Concerns (4)
The bill increases the risk of releasing or retraumatizing crime victims when new DNA testing identifies a different perpetrator, as the process may uncover evidence pointing to another person’s guilt—potentially undermining finality of convictions and causing emotional harm to victims during reopened proceedings.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)The 30-day automatic grant rule may strain local court resources and prosecutorial capacity, especially in rural counties with limited staff, as courts must process motions quickly or automatically grant them—potentially leading to rushed decisions or increased administrative burden without additional funding.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)While counsel may be appointed for indigent defendants, the discretionary nature and narrow scope (only for filing the motion, not full representation) mean many low-income applicants will still lack adequate legal support to effectively navigate the process—limiting real access despite the procedural improvement.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4)The bill may increase state and local costs in the short term for DNA testing, court hearings, and discovery—funds that could be redirected from other public services, and while long-term savings are possible, the near-term budget pressure falls disproportionately on counties with already strained resources.
FinancialPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Currently incarcerated individuals have the strongest positive impact: they gain a meaningful, legally enforceable path to obtain potentially exonerating DNA evidence, reducing wrongful incarceration and increasing fairness in the justice system.
Low-income defendants benefit significantly from the discretionary counsel appointment, though the narrow scope limits full representation; overall, this reduces a major procedural barrier to filing motions.
Prosecutors face increased workload and legal burden (clear and convincing standard), but the 30-day deadline and automatic grant provision may reduce protracted litigation; net impact is mixed but leans negative due to added burden.
Courts gain clearer procedural rules but face tighter deadlines and potential for increased motion volume; the impact is mixed but slightly negative due to resource strain without explicit funding support.
Victims and families may face emotional distress if new DNA evidence identifies a different perpetrator, but victim/witness units are mandated to handle contact—mitigating harm; overall, impact is mixed but leans negative due to retraumatization risk.