Eyewitness Identification Reform

In 2014, the Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group (OMAG) released a model policy for eyewitness identification procedures. The model policy includes: blind/blinded administration, proper use of fillers, proper instructions to the witness, witness confidence statements, and the audio/video recordation of identification procedures, if practicable. The policy also includes procedure for show up identifications. Adopted: 2014.

Read the OMAG model policy

Recording of Interrogations

Oklahoma has no law requiring recorded interrogations.

Post Conviction DNA

Testing Oklahoma passed a post-conviction DNA testing law May 24, 2013, making it the 50th state to do so. Effective: 2013.

Read the statute.

Evidence Preservation

State statute requires that criminal justice agencies retain and automatically preserve biological evidence from violent felony convictions for the length of incarceration of an individual. Effective: 2001.

Oklahoma's statute meets the best practices standards outlined by the NIST Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation.

Read the statute.

Exoneree Compensation

A wrongfully convicted person is entitled to receive $175,000 for the entirety of his wrongful incarceration as long as he did not plead guilty and was imprisoned solely as a result of the wrongful conviction. Effective: 1978; Amended most recently: 2003.

Read the statute.

In-Custody Informants

In Dodd v. State (2000), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that before jailhouse informant testimony is deemed admissible at trial, prosecutors must disclose certain information to the defense at least ten days before trial, such as: the informant’s criminal history, any benefit that has been or may be offered in exchange for their testimony, any other cases in which the informant testified or offered statements, and any benefits the informant received in those cases. In addition, a jury instruction must be given when jailhouse informant witness testimony is going to be used at trial. The instruction directs jurors to assess the jailhouse informant’s testimony with greater scrutiny and details reliability factors that jurors should consider, including: benefits offered or expected in exchange for testimony, criminal history, other cases in which the jailhouse informant testified in exchange for benefits, and whether the jailhouse informant has recanted or changed his/her statements. Effective: 2000.

Read the jury instruction