[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>