BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor

3227

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 1176.

This bill amends the provisions for post—conviction
review to enable any person convicted of a crime to
institute review proceedings based on newly discovered
evidence that was not, by due diligence, discoverable during
the period of time specified in the Maryland Rules for
motions for a new trial.

A careful review of this bill indicates clearly the
serious impact which it may have on the judicial branch of
government. During fiscal year 1979 alone, 441
post-conviction cases were filed in the circuit courts
pursuant to the current post—conviction statute. House Bill
1476 will impact severely upon that trend.

The bill creates, based on newly discovered evidence, a
substantive right of review in cases currently excluded
under the post—conviction act. House Bill 1476 will involve
a hearing to enable the introduction of new evidence and a
determination of whether or not, by due diligence, the
evidence was discoverable at an earlier time.

Although the effective date of the bill is July 1,
1978, Section 2 of the bill specifies a limited retroactive
effect with respect to applications for review (i) that were
based on newly discovered evidence and (ii) were denied
after January 1, 1978, (iii) if a timely appeal of the
denial was filed and, (iv) on the date of passage of the
bill, the appeal is still pending. While the number of
cases that will actually meet these four criteria is likely
quite small, a cursory review of the Maryland Reports for
the period of time immediately following adoption of the
current Act demonstrates that a plethora of cases may be
filed in order to determine if an additional review is
available. It can be anticipated that every offender
currently incarcerated, or on probationary status, will file
an application for review, and if denied, will file an
application for leave to appeal. The application may be
filed years after the original conviction. This raises the
spectre of relitigating cases in which the evidence or the
witnesses are no longer available.

However, the burdens of House Bill 1476 do not impact
solely on the judicial branch of government. Other elements
of the criminal justice system will be affected.
Representation by counsel in these cases may in large
measure become the responsibility of the Public Defender's
Office. And in instances where the petitioner is unable to
pay costs, this responsibility must be met by the political
subdivision where judgment was rendered. The Division of
Correction also may be expected to incur additional expenses
in the implementation of this measure, such as those
incurred in transporting the petitioner to a hearing.