PEOPLE'S COMMISSION FOR  INTEGRITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PEOPLE'S COMMISSION FOR  INTEGRITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
  • Home
  • Our Mission
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Proposal
    • Our Team
  • Current Cases
  • Events
  • Issues
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Blog
  • More
    • Home
    • Our Mission
      • Mission Statement
      • Our Proposal
      • Our Team
    • Current Cases
    • Events
    • Issues
    • Contact
    • Donate
    • Blog
  • Home
  • Our Mission
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Proposal
    • Our Team
  • Current Cases
  • Events
  • Issues
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Blog

Our Mission ________

We are pushing to create a post-conviction review commission that would independently review claims of government misconduct underlying wrongful convictions and harsh sentences.

If we are ever to correct our state's history of over-sentencing, police misconduct, and wrongful conviction, we need an accessible, fair, and impartial system for review.

Our justice system is guided by the principle that every person is innocent until proven guilty.

 However, once a conviction is obtained, there is a very real permanence to this closure. It is nearly impossible to overturn a conviction or change a sentence once it has been rendered. 

The National Registry of Exonerations puts California at 292 individual exonerations since 1989.

The leading causes of individual wrongful conviction in the United States are also the leading contributing factors in California: false and unreliable evidence, illegal conduct and serious errors by police and prosecutors, a lack of adequate defense, mistaken witness identification, and false confessions. 


Countrywide, official misconduct contributed to the false convictions of 54% of defendants who were later exonerated – a rate that increases in more severe crimes. Most commonly, this misconduct is concealing exculpatory evidence (present in 44% of exonerations), but it also includes witness tampering, interrogation misconduct, evidence fabrication, and perjury at trial. 

Police misconduct has been a prominent factor in recorded wrongful convictions in California.

190 out of the 292 known exonerations in the state come from the Rampart Scandal alone, which involved over 70 officers in the early 2000s planting false evidence, stealing narcotics, perjuring, and committing brutal acts of violence. A similar police corruption scandal by four “Oakland Riders” police officers came to light in 2003; these four officers were exposed for falsified reports and evidence that led to the framing of dozens of innocent people.

Historically, procedural bars in California have made it almost impossible to present a Habeas claim

94% of the capital habeas cases that have been brought before the California Supreme Court have been denied. Up until 2016, California had one of the highest innocence standards in the country, as “new evidence of innocence” necessary to request review was defined almost impossibly narrowly as “evidence that was not available or known at trial that completely undermines the prosecution’s case and points unerringly to innocence.” 


The standard was lowered by the passage of SB 1134, which sought to bring the standard in line with forty three other states. Rather than evidence which points “unerringly to innocence,” the standard now mandates that the new evidence must create “a reasonable probability of a different outcome.” 

Innocence claims are highly dependent on DNA evidence, which presents yet another hurdle.

DNA is estimated to be collected in fewer than 10% of crimes. And even when it does exist and is collected, the material can become degraded, rendering  it useless in defense.

Testing can be exorbitant: in a single case, it can cost anywhere between $5,000 and $50,000. 


Despite this, most states do not allow for cases to be reviewed  unless there is “new evidence. ” These states define this narrowly as "newly discovered evidence not available at trial," which is often limited  to DNA. Potentially, then, more than 90% of criminal cases would not  have ANY  legal avenue for review if claiming innocence--- including access to an attorney.


So, while the advent of DNA has been life changing for some, the vast majority are left behind in our current criminal-legal system emphasizing finality over integrity. 


There needs to be greater access to review of cases and a system of fair, impartial review.

The truth is: California does not uniformly apply the law.

Read:

Sentencing Disparities in Bay Area Counties.

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

read

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

Read Report

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "Innocence Isn't Enough"

Resistance to Implementing Resentencing in Riverside County

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "Innocence Isn't Enough"

Read

What We Do

The Commission Proposal

We are working to build a coalition to support our proposed post-conviction review commission that would provide a fair and just review process for all. We want fair sentencing,  tools for effective rehabilitation rather than punishment, and government officials to be held accountable for their misconduct.

Read our Commission Proposal

Pro Bono Legal Services

We provide pro bono legal services to individuals with claims of wrongful conviction in California. Read their stories and access their Habeas petitions here.

See Our Active Cases

Advocacy

Fair review cannot come about on its own. In order for it to be effective, it must come with a real investment the public services that actually work to keep communities safer, a commitment to holding government officials accountable and a public education which dismantles political fear-mongering myths about crime.

Our Advocacy

People's Commission for Integrity in Criminal Justice

775 W Blithedale, PMB 136 Mill Valley, CA 94941

Copyright © 2025 People's Commission for Integrity in Criminal Justice - All Rights Reserved.

Powered by

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept