I 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3320 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 23, 2009 Mr. Moore of Kansas (for himself and Mr. Payne) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide an exception to the requirement of motion to the court of appeals before filing certain second or subsequent petitions for habeas corpus, and for other purposes.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Justice for the Wrongfully Accused Act.

2.

Exception to requirement of motion to court of appeals before filing certain second or subsequent petitions for habeas corpus

Section 2244(b)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1)in subparagraph (A), by striking Before and inserting Except as otherwise provided by law, before; and (2)by adding at the end the following: (F)The requirement for a motion under subparagraph (A) does not apply if the second or subsequent application rests solely on a claim of actual innocence arising from— (i)newly discovered evidence from forensic testing; (ii)exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense at trial; or (iii)newly discovered accounts by credible witnesses who recant prior testimony or establish improper action of State or Federal agents. .

3.

Exhaustion of remedies

Section 2254(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1)in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting , unless exempted under paragraph (4), after has; and (2)by adding at the end the following: (4)If the application is based on a claim that the police or prosecution withheld exculpatory, impeachment, or other evidence favorable to the defendant, the exhaustion requirement of paragraph (1)(A) does not apply. .

4.

Evidentiary hearing

The final paragraph of section 2243 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: If the applicant makes a credible proffer of evidence supporting a claim of actual innocence based on one of the circumstances described in section 2244(b)(3)(F), the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts relating to the claim. If the proffer is based in whole or in part on a witness who testified at the petitioner’s trial, the witness’ evidentiary hearing testimony is only admissible if it is a recantation or establishes improper action of State agents. If the court determines the claim is without merit, the petitioner is barred from raising that claim in a successor petition..