At a glance

Oregon Senate Bill 1515 (SB 1515) changes how the state handles wrongful convictions, specifically focusing on cases that relied on forensic science methods now considered unreliable. The measure, which passed both chambers of the Oregon Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Tina Kotek, establishes a new post-conviction relief process for individuals whose convictions were based on discredited disciplines such as hair microscopy, bite mark analysis, and comparative bullet lead analysis.

In addition to creating this new legal pathway, the bill significantly increases the financial compensation available to exonerees. It mandates that courts issue a "certificate of innocence" when awarding compensation and requires the sealing of associated criminal records. The new provisions for challenging convictions based on discredited science are set to expire, or sunset, on January 2, 2031, allowing the legislature to review their impact before making them permanent.

What the bill does

SB 1515 makes two primary sets of changes to Oregon law: it modifies the compensation framework for wrongful convictions and creates a specific post-conviction relief process for certain forensic science errors.

Increased Compensation and Support The bill amends ORS 30.657 to raise the statutory compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Under the new law, eligible individuals receive $65,000 for each year of imprisonment, adjusted annually for cost of living up to 3 percent. Additionally, they receive $25,000 for each year served on parole, post-prison supervision, or required sex offender registration. These amounts are higher than previous standards and are designed to provide greater financial stability upon release.

The court is required to include a "certificate of innocence" in any judgment awarding compensation, formally stating that the petitioner has proven their innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. Upon entry of this judgment, the court must order that all associated conviction and arrest records be set aside and sealed from state and federal systems, regardless of whether the individual has other criminal convictions.

The bill also expands non-monetary support. Courts may award access to existing state and local programs providing counseling, housing assistance, medical assistance, educational aid, job training, and legal services to regain custody of children. The Attorney General is required to review compensation petitions within 180 days and is prohibited from opposing the petition if the statutory requirements for innocence are met.

New Post-Conviction Relief for Discredited Science The bill creates a new petition process within ORS 138.510–138.680 for individuals convicted based on specific discredited forensic science disciplines. These disciplines are defined as:

  • Hair microscopy: Visual comparison of hair samples without DNA testing, particularly where experts assigned statistical weight or probability to a match.
  • Bite mark analysis or comparison: Subjective analysis of bite marks to identify a suspect, excluding DNA analysis of biological material found in or around the bite.
  • Comparative bullet lead analysis: Chemical composition analysis of bullet fragments based on the assumption that lead batches have unique chemical signatures.

Under this new process, a person can file for post-conviction relief even if they pleaded guilty, did not object to the evidence at trial, or have already completed their sentence. The court must grant relief if the petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the conviction was substantially based on these discredited methods and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without them. For those who pleaded guilty, they must show that the discredited science was a material factor in their decision to plead.

This specific relief pathway is exempt from standard procedural bars that typically prevent old cases from being reopened. However, the provision sunsets on January 2, 2031, meaning it will no longer be available for new petitions filed after that date unless the legislature acts to extend it.

Why supporters favor it

Supporters of SB 1515 argue that the bill addresses long-standing injustices caused by flawed forensic techniques. By acknowledging that disciplines like bite mark analysis and hair microscopy have been discredited by the scientific community, the law provides a timely avenue for legal redress for those who were wrongly convicted based on this evidence.

Proponents emphasize that the increased compensation and certificate of innocence are crucial for helping exonerees rebuild their lives. The financial awards, combined with access to reentry services like housing and counseling, aim to mitigate the severe personal and economic harms suffered during wrongful imprisonment. The requirement for the Attorney General to refrain from opposing valid claims streamlines the process, reducing the legal burden on individuals who have already endured significant trauma.

The bill is also seen as a step toward restoring public trust in the criminal justice system by correcting errors rooted in outdated scientific practices. The sunset clause allows for a structured evaluation of the law’s effectiveness, ensuring that the legislature can assess the volume and validity of claims before deciding on permanent adoption.

Why critics object

Critics of the bill, including some legislators who voted against it in the House, may raise concerns about the finality of criminal judgments. By allowing challenges to convictions even when defendants pleaded guilty or failed to object at trial, the bill could undermine the principle that legal disputes should have a definitive end. This exemption from standard procedural bars may open the door to renewed litigation for older cases where evidence, witnesses, or records may no longer be available, potentially complicating the judicial process.

There are also concerns about the financial impact on the state. While the bill does not specify exact costs in the provided text, increasing compensation rates to $65,000 per year and adding annuity payments could create a significant fiscal burden. Critics may question whether the state budget can sustain these increased payouts, especially if a large number of past convictions relied on the discredited forensic methods listed in the bill.

Some opponents may also argue that the definition of "discredited science" is too broad or that the bill does not sufficiently protect the interests of victims of the original crimes, who may be subpoenaed to testify in these new proceedings. Although the bill includes protections for victims, such as the ability to appear electronically, the prospect of reopening old cases can be distressing for those affected by the initial crime.

Who is affected

Individuals Wrongfully Convicted The primary beneficiaries are people previously convicted of felonies in Oregon who were later exonerated or pardoned, as well as those currently incarcerated or previously convicted based on hair microscopy, bite mark analysis, or comparative bullet lead analysis. These individuals gain a clearer path to proving their innocence and receiving financial compensation.

The Oregon Department of Justice The Attorney General’s office is tasked with reviewing compensation petitions within 180 days and representing the state in these proceedings. The bill requires the AG to submit annual reports summarizing determinations and attorney fees, adding to the department’s administrative responsibilities.

Circuit Courts Circuit courts, particularly in Marion County or the county of conviction, will handle the new petitions for compensation and post-conviction relief. Judges will need to evaluate complex scientific evidence and determine whether discredited forensic methods were substantial factors in original convictions.

Victims of Original Crimes Victims may be affected by the reopening of cases. While the bill restricts when victims can be compelled to testify, they may still be involved in the proceedings. The law allows victims to request no personal contact and to appear via electronic transmission, aiming to minimize additional trauma.

What the vote record shows

SB 1515 received strong support in the Senate but faced more opposition in the House. On February 24, 2026, the Senate passed the bill with 28 ayes and 1 nay. Senator Drazan cast the sole negative vote, while Senator Smith DB was excused.

In the House, the bill passed on March 5, 2026, with 40 ayes and 16 nays. The 16 representatives voting against the bill included Boice, Bunch, Diehl, Edwards, Harbick, Helfrich, Lewis, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Scharf, Skarlatos, Smith G, and Yunker. Four representatives were excused or absent. This split suggests that while the concept of correcting wrongful convictions is widely supported, there may be partisan or ideological differences regarding the scope of retroactive application and the financial implications of the measure.

The Senate concurred with House amendments on March 6, 2026, with 29 ayes and no nays, indicating that the final version of the bill was acceptable to the upper chamber. Governor Tina Kotek signed the bill on April 7, 2026, and it became effective immediately due to an emergency clause.

What happens next

With the signing of SB 1515, the new compensation rates and post-conviction relief process are now law. Individuals who believe they were convicted based on discredited forensic science can begin filing petitions under the new provisions. The Attorney General’s office will start reviewing compensation claims under the 180-day timeline, and courts will begin issuing certificates of innocence and sealing records for successful petitioners.

The sunset provision means that the specific pathway for challenging convictions based on discredited science will expire on January 2, 2031. Before that date, the legislature may review data on the number of petitions filed, the success rate of claims, and the fiscal impact on the state. This review could lead to legislation extending, modifying, or letting the provision expire. In the meantime, the increased compensation standards and record-sealing requirements remain in effect indefinitely.

For more context on how Oregon laws are shaped and implemented, readers can explore the Power the People Oregon civic reporting library to stay informed about ongoing legislative developments.

Sources

Keep exploring Oregon civic power

Explore current Oregon voter initiatives and community proposals.

Related Oregon reading