Bill proposes monetary relief for exonoree

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man recently released from prison after DNA evidence proved his innocence may receive $100,000 if one Indiana representative's bill passes.

Rep. Vern Tincher, D-Terre Haute, has proposed House Bill 1162 to provide relief to David. L. Scott, who went to prison after being convicted of murdering 89-year-old W. Terre Haute resident Loretta Keith in 1984.

According to news reports, Scott was convicted largely in part because of a taped admission he made saying he killed Keith. Scott, a special needs student, was 17 years old when he was sent to prison for 80 years. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld his conviction, but reduced his sentence to 50 years.

DNA evidence eventually cleared Scott and he was released from prison in 2008.

Scott's story came to the attention of Tincher after he received an e-mail from his local television station asking legislators what they could do for Scott. Tincher asked for an interim study committee on compensation for wrongful incarceration as well as expungement of someone's criminal history record when they are released from prison based on DNA evidence.

"We had our day with the policy sentencing commission and had several people testify," Tincher said. "They chose to take no action. I had a bill drafted that provides compensation to David Scott on humanitarian purposes."

The bill specifies that the $100,000 in relief is not payment of damages but is provided only for "humanitarian consideration for the wrongs done to David L. Scott." Tincher said the amount, which would come from the state general fund, is minimal compensation, but will allow him to get on with his life.

Tincher said 21 states, plus Washington, D.C., and the federal government have statutory laws addressing compensation for people who have been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated, but he decided to tailor this bill just for Scott instead of one that would generally compensate people wrongfully convicted. He did say he may pursue a bill like that in the future.

"I believe we are going to have more individuals released from incarceration based on DNA evidence," Tincher said. "Most cases, even as recent as 10 to 15 years ago, didn't have all the capabilities of testing DNA as they do now."

HB 1162 has been assigned to the House Committee on Public Policy. The Scott case also prompted Tincher to author HB 1163, which deals with expungement of a criminal history record for someone who has been released from prison based on DNA evidence. That bill is before the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Codes.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."