This bill expresses legislative intent to expand access to postconviction DNA testing and amends RCW 10.73.170 to create procedures and standards for verified written motions by people convicted of a felony who are currently serving a term of imprisonment. It establishes a presumption in favor of granting testing when requested and when the results could support a claim of innocence, specifies required contents of the motion, and directs that DNA testing ordered under the section must be performed or contracted by the Washington State Patrol crime laboratory. The amendment requires a convicted person to state that either prior testing was ruled scientifically unacceptable, DNA technology was not then adequate, or that the requested testing would be significantly more accurate or provide significant new information, and to explain why the evidence is material to identity of the perpetrator or an accomplice or to a sentence enhancement. The court must grant a properly filed motion unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the DNA evidence could not show a likelihood of innocence; in that evaluation the court must presume test results most favorable to the convicted person in light of trial evidence. The state has 30 days to oppose a motion; failure to oppose within 30 days requires the court to grant the motion. The bill also allows an indigent convicted person (per RCW 10.101.010) to request appointment of counsel solely to prepare and present the motion, entitles the convicted person to discovery consistent with trial laws and court rules when testing is ordered, directs victim contact through victim/witness divisions, and requires preservation of biological material under chapter 5.70 RCW, any sentencing court order, and applicable court rules. The bill specifies that an order or request authorizing testing does not reflect any party’s or the court’s view about the legal significance of test results. This is primarily a procedural change to postconviction process and evidentiary handling, creating a presumption favoring DNA testing, defining motion content and timelines, and setting the state’s burden of proof to oppose testing. The extracted text does not identify which specific court rules will govern procedural requirements or evidence preservation, does not provide statutory definitions for terms like “verified written motion” or “biological material,” and may be only part of the full bill.

If enacted, people serving felony sentences would have a much easier path to get postconviction DNA testing: they can file a verified motion with the sentencing court (with a copy to the state office of public defense), and the court must order testing unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence the test could not show a likelihood of innocence. The law creates a strong presumption in favor of testing, gives the defendant discovery rights when testing is ordered, allows indigent prisoners to request counsel to prepare the motion, and requires testing to be done or contracted by the Washington State Patrol crime lab while victim contact is handled by victim/witness divisions. Practical effects will likely include more testing requests and faster deadlines for prosecutors (30 days to oppose or the motion is granted), increasing workload and costs for the state patrol crime lab (or its contractors), courts, public defense offices, prosecutors, and victim/witness units, and creating added pressure to preserve biological evidence per existing preservation rules. The exact scale and timing of these impacts is unclear because the bill relies on unspecified court rules and does not define some procedural terms, so funding and staffing needs would depend on those later details.