107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 800
To provide for post-conviction DNA testing, to establish a competent
counsel grant program, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 30, 2001
Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide for post-conviction DNA testing, to establish a competent
counsel grant program, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Criminal Justice Integrity and
Innocence Protection Act of 2001'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the last decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing (referred to in this
Act as `DNA testing') has emerged as the most reliable forensic technique
for identifying criminals when biological evidence of the crime is obtained.
DNA testing `has been acknowledged by the courts as well as the national
scientific community for its extraordinary degree of accuracy in matching
cellular material to individuals'. Commonwealth v. Brison, 618 A.2d 420
(S. Ct. Pa. 1992).
(2) In many cases, DNA testing of biological evidence can reveal relevant
evidence of a crime, or even conclusively prove the guilt or innocence of
a criminal defendant.
(3) While DNA testing is standard in pretrial investigations in every State
today, it was not widely available prior to the early 1990's. In addition,
new DNA testing technologies have been developed that can accurately examine
minute samples and obtain more discriminating results than earlier forms
of DNA testing.
(4) DNA testing is possible on biological evidence that is more than a decade
old. Because biological evidence, such as semen or hair from a rape, is
often preserved by authorities years after trial, it has become possible
to submit preserved biological evidence to DNA testing. In cases that were
tried before DNA technology existed, and in which biological evidence was
preserved after conviction, post-conviction testing is feasible.
(5) Because DNA testing is standard in pretrial investigations in every
State today, the issue of post-conviction DNA testing involves only a narrow
class of cases prosecuted before adequate DNA technology existed. In the
near future, the need for post-conviction DNA testing should cease because
of the availability of pretrial testing with advanced technologies.
(6) In the last decade, post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated innocent
persons who were wrongly convicted in trials that occurred before adequate
DNA testing existed. In some of these cases, the post-conviction DNA testing
that exonerated a wrongly convicted person also provided evidence that led
to the apprehension of the actual perpetrator.
(7) Under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to obtain post-conviction
DNA testing because of time limits on introducing newly discovered evidence.
In 38 States, motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence
must be made not later than 2 years after the date of conviction. In some
States, such motions must be made not later than 30 days after the date
of conviction. Under Federal law, such a motion must be made not later than
3 years after the date of conviction. These time limits are based on the
fact that evidence becomes less reliable after the passage of time and,
as a result, it is difficult to prosecute criminal cases years after the
crime occurred.
(8) The time limits on introducing newly discovered evidence should not
bar post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases because DNA testing
can produce accurate results on biological evidence that is more than a
decade old. Unlike other evidence, the results of DNA testing are not necessarily
less reliable after the passage of time.
(9) Once post-conviction DNA testing is performed, the results of such testing
should be considered as newly discovered evidence by the courts. If post-conviction
testing produces exculpatory evidence, the defendant should be allowed to
move for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, notwithstanding
the time limits on such motions applicable to other forms of newly discovered
evidence. In addition, courts should weigh motions for a new trial based
on post-conviction DNA testing results under the established precedents
for motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
TITLE I--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING IN FEDERAL COURT
SEC. 101. POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.
(a) FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Part II of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after chapter 228 the following:
`CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
`Sec.
`3600A. Prohibition on destruction of biological material.
`Sec. 3600. DNA testing
`(a) MOTION- During the 36-month period beginning on the date of enactment
of this section, an individual serving a term of imprisonment for conviction
in a court of the United States of a criminal offense (referred to in this
section as the `applicant') may make a written motion to the court that entered
the judgment of conviction for the performance of forensic DNA testing on
specified evidence, if--
`(1) that evidence was secured in relation to the investigation or prosecution
that resulted in the conviction of the applicant; and
`(2) that evidence was not previously subjected to DNA testing--
`(A) because DNA testing was not available or was available, but not technologically
capable of providing probative results; or
`(B) through no fault of the convicted person, for reasons that are of
a nature such that the interests of justice require DNA testing; or
`(3) although previously subjected to DNA testing, that evidence can be
subjected to testing with newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable
likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results
of the previous test.
`(b) NOTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT- Upon receipt of a motion under subsection (a),
the court shall notify the Government and shall afford the Government an opportunity
to respond to the motion.
`(c) REQUIREMENTS- In any motion under subsection (a), the applicant shall--
`(1) under penalty of perjury, assert the actual innocence of the applicant
of--
`(A) the offense for which the applicant was convicted; or
`(B) uncharged conduct, if the exoneration of the applicant of such conduct
would result in a mandatory reduction in the sentence of the applicant;
`(2) identify the specific evidence (that was secured in relation to the
investigation or prosecution that resulted in the conviction of the applicant)
to be tested and a theory of defense, not inconsistent with previously asserted
theories, that the requested DNA testing would support; and
`(3) present a prima facie showing that--
`(A) the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the trial that resulted
in the conviction of the applicant; and
`(B) DNA testing of the specified evidence would, assuming exculpatory
results, establish the actual innocence of the applicant of--
`(i) the offense for which the applicant was convicted; or
`(ii) uncharged conduct, if the exoneration of the applicant of such
conduct would result in a mandatory reduction in the sentence of the
applicant.
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall order
the testing requested in a motion under subsection (a) under reasonable
conditions designed to protect the interests of the Government in the integrity
of the evidence and the testing process, upon a determination, after review
of the record of the trial of the applicant, that--
`(A) the applicant has met the requirements of subsection (c);
`(B) the evidence to be tested is in the possession of the Government
or the court and has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to
establish that it has not been altered in any material respect; and
`(C) the motion is made in a timely manner and for the purpose of demonstrating
the actual innocence of the applicant and not to delay the execution of
sentence or administration of justice.
`(2) EXCEPTION- The court shall not order the testing requested in a motion
under subsection (a) if, after review of the record of the trial of the
applicant, the court determines that there is no reasonable possibility
that the testing will produce exculpatory evidence that would establish
the actual innocence of the applicant of--
`(A) the offense for which the applicant was convicted; or
`(B) uncharged conduct, if the exoneration of the applicant of such conduct
would result in a mandatory reduction in the sentence of the applicant.
`(3) FINAL ORDER- An order under this subsection is a final order for purposes
of section 1291 of title 28, United States Code.
`(1) SELECTION OF LABORATORY- Any DNA testing ordered under this section
shall be conducted by--
`(A) a laboratory mutually selected by the Government and the applicant;
or
`(B) if the Government and the applicant are unable to agree on a laboratory,
a laboratory selected by the court that ordered the testing.
`(2) COSTS- The costs of any testing ordered under this section shall be
paid--
`(A) by the applicant; or
`(B) in the case of an applicant who is indigent, by the court.
`(f) TIME LIMITATION IN CAPITAL CASES- In any case in which the applicant
is sentenced to death--
`(1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall be completed not later
than 120 days after
the date on which the Government responds to the motion under subsection
(a); and
`(2) the court shall order any post-testing procedures under subsection
(g) not later than 30 days after the date on which the DNA testing is completed.
`(g) POST-TESTING PROCEDURES-
`(1) RESULTS UNFAVORABLE TO APPLICANT- If the DNA testing conducted under
this section produces inconclusive evidence or evidence that is unfavorable
to the applicant--
`(i) dismiss the application; and
`(ii) forward the results of the testing to the appropriate parole board
that would have jurisdiction over a request for parole by the applicant;
and
`(B) the Government shall compare the evidence to DNA evidence from unsolved
crimes in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
`(2) RESULTS FAVORABLE TO APPLICANT- If the DNA testing conducted under
this section produces exculpatory evidence--
`(A) the applicant may, during the 60-day period beginning on the date
on which the applicant is notified of the test results, make a motion
to the court that ordered the testing for a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence under rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, notwithstanding
any provision of law that would bar such a motion as untimely; and
`(B) upon receipt of a motion under subparagraph (A), the court that ordered
the testing shall consider the motion under rule 33 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, notwithstanding any provision of law that would
bar such consideration as untimely.
`(h) APPLICABILITY TO FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS- The denial of post-conviction
DNA testing by a Federal or State court shall not be a ground for relief in
any proceeding under Federal habeas corpus.
`(i) COUNSEL- The court may appoint counsel for an indigent applicant under
this section.'.
`Sec. 3600A. Prohibition on destruction of biological material
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the
period described in paragraph (2), the Government shall not destroy any
biological material preserved if the defendant is serving a term of imprisonment
following conviction in that case.
`(2) PERIOD DESCRIBED- The period described in this paragraph is the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this section and ending on the later
of--
`(A) the expiration of the 36-month period beginning on that date of enactment;
or
`(B) the date on which any proceedings under section 3600 relating to
the case are completed.
`(b) SANCTIONS FOR INTENTIONAL VIOLATION- The court may impose appropriate
sanctions, including criminal contempt, for an intentional violation of subsection
(a).'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The analysis for part II of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 228 the following:
3600'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to any judgment
of conviction entered before, on, or after that date of enactment.
(c) REPEAL- Effective 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, this
section and the amendments made by this section are repealed.
SEC. 102. DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION.
Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135)
is amended in subsection (b)--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(6) provide assurances that the State shall adopt DNA testing guidelines
consistent with the Federal guidelines established under chapter 228A of
title 18, United States Code.'.
TITLE II--ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES
SEC. 201. COMPETENT COUNSEL GRANT PROGRAM.
The State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 207 the following:
`SEC. 207A. COMPETENT COUNSEL GRANT PROGRAM.
`(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED- The Institute is authorized to award grants to States
to assist in the adoption of national minimum standards for competent counsel
in non-Federal capital cases.
`(b) USE OF FUNDS- Grants awarded under subsection (a) may be used--
`(1) to fund actual compliance with national minimum standards; and
`(2) to provide counsel with legal training in--
`(B) the use of forensic evidence;
`(C) the efficient and responsible use of the judicial system; and
`(c) NATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Institute shall establish national minimum standards
for competent counsel in non-Federal capital cases.
`(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS- In establishing national minimum standards,
the Institute shall--
`(A) give strong consideration to existing statutory standards for Federal
capital cases, as well as American Bar Association guidelines and other
published standards; and
`(B) consult a balanced group of Federal and State prosecutors, criminal
defense counsel, and Federal and State judges, including the Conference
of Chief Justices and the National Association of Attorneys General.
`(3) REQUIREMENTS- National minimum standards established under this subsection
shall include--
`(A) the appointment of at least 1 defense attorney with experience in
capital cases;
`(B) a system for approving and monitoring the continuing competence of
counsel eligible for appointment in capital cases by the highest appellate
court in the State or another designated entity; and
`(C) defense access to appropriate investigative and scientific resources.
`(4) DEADLINE- The Institute shall establish the national minimum standards
no more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this section.
`(1) IN GENERAL- Each eligible State desiring a grant under this section
shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Director may reasonably require.
`(2) CONSIDERATION- The Institute may award grants only to States that agree
to establish local mechanisms to achieve ongoing compliance with the national
minimum standards established by the Institute under this section.
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Institute shall submit an annual report to the Congress
and to the Attorney General detailing the status of capital defense in each
State that provides for capital punishment.
`(2) CONTENTS- The annual report submitted under this subsection shall include--
`(A) the extent to which certified counsel are used in capital cases;
`(B) the extent of frivolous or vexatious litigation by appointed counsel;
`(C) the extent of reversal of cases on appeal where certified counsel
were appointed and in cases where non-certified counsel were appointed;
and
`(D) the extent of any disparity in assets available to the prosecution
and defense at the trial stage and the appellate stage.'.
SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to carry out section 207A(a) of the
State Justice Institute Act of 1984, as added by this title;
(2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the State Justice Institute to establish
national minimum standards for competent counsel under section 207A(c) of
the State Justice Institute Act of 1984, as added by this title; and
(3) such sums as are necessary to carry out this title in fiscal years after
2002.
END
