[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 800 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
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.
``3600. DNA testing.
``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.
``(d) Order.--
``(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.
``(e) Testing Procedures.--
``(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--
``(A) the court shall--
``(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
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(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:
``228A. Post-conviction DNA testing......................... 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--
``(A) capital defense;
``(B) the use of forensic evidence;
``(C) the efficient and responsible use of the
judicial system; and
``(D) legal ethics.
``(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.
``(d) Application.--
``(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.
``(e) Annual Report.--
``(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.
<all>