Cynthia Mousseau sat in the front row of the gallery as lawmakers debated a bill that would let people convicted of crimes seek a new trial based on fresh evidence, even after the state’s current three-year deadline has passed.
When the vote was finally called, and state senators moved to eliminate that time restriction, Mousseau said she started shaking.
“It was really emotional. Honestly, it was really moving,” said Mousseau, an attorney with the New England Innocence Project who practices in New Hampshire. “It’s been almost three years, and it’s taken us so long to get to this point.”
On Wednesday, the New Hampshire Legislature voted to override Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s veto of House Bill 1422, which allows people convicted of crimes to request a new trial after the three-year window has closed, as long as they can present new evidence that contradicts the verdict against them.
The Senate voted 18–6, and the House voted 314–7, to override the veto.
New Hampshire already allows new trials in cases where DNA evidence was used or an alleged constitutional violation occurred during the first trial, but for cases that don’t have either of those, defendants only had three years to request a new trial based on other types of evidence.
In cases where new video, scientific advancements, or additional witnesses come forward, or someone else confesses after the three years, a new trial remained out of reach.
New Hampshire had been one of only three states, along with Arkansas and Idaho, with an absolute deadline for convicts to introduce new evidence.
Mousseau said that with the law now set to take effect Jan. 1, 2027, she already has specific New Hampshire cases in mind that could qualify for a new trial, though she doesn’t expect the state to see a flood of new litigation. The bill was proposed in the legislature at least in two other years.
Nationwide, 4,200 people have been exonerated over the past three-plus decades, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. Only three of those have occurred in New Hampshire.
According to the Innocence Project, it takes an average of 16 years for new scientific advancements to emerge that can help overturn wrongful convictions.
Mousseau said one contributing factor to the low number of exonerations in New Hampshire is the state’s strict time limit.
“This was a huge, significant bar to litigation here, and it’s one piece,” Mousseau said. “I wouldn’t say it’s the only piece, and I wouldn’t say it’s even the only statutory piece. But it’s one piece that we think is contributing.”
State Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican and retired Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court who urged his colleagues to override Ayotte’s veto, said he disagrees that the low number of exonerees is tied to the law.
“Maybe this is just being a little parochial, but I think that the reason that there are very few of those kind of cases in New Hampshire is that our justice system is pretty good,” he said. “We really proceed very carefully in criminal cases, and so I think it’s not to say we’re foolproof, but I do think that, most of the time, if somebody is found guilty in New Hampshire, they really are guilty.”
Ayotte has been opposed to allowing defendants to seek a new trial after the three-year deadline, arguing that those who maintain their innocence can already pursue a writ of habeas corpus, which requires a constitutional violation, or coram nobis, a remedy available only after a defendant has completed their full sentence.
“I’m a really strong supporter of Governor Ayotte. I feel confident she’s going to be re-elected,” Lynn said. “But that doesn’t mean that we agree on every single thing. This is one of the ones where I have to respectfully disagree with her.”
The bill also drew opposition from prosecutors, who warned it could open the door to frivolous requests for new trials.
Advocates pushed back on that concern, arguing that the bill leaves the evidentiary requirements for seeking a new trial untouched and it simply lifts the deadline.
They also pointed out that other states which have removed similar time restrictions have not seen a rise in frivolous litigation as a result.
Mousseau said the bipartisan support for the bill, along with the time it took to become law, has helped show that wrongfully convicted people could be sitting in New Hampshire prisons.
“Incarceration is traumatizing whether you’re guilty or innocent, but to have that added layer of being in there for something that you didn’t do is extremely traumatizing,” she said. “I would hope that everybody would understand that innocence is the literal fulcrum of the justice system.”
