[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S8899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PROTECTING AGAINST WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to once again state my strong 
support for legislation that increases access to post conviction DNA 
testing.
  Our judicial system has numerous safeguards in place to help protect 
against wrongful convictions of innocent people. The presumption that a 
person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is one 
of many protections our judicial system provides to protect against 
wrongful convictions. Rights to appeal criminal convictions are another 
example.
  Despite these many protections, I recognize that wrongful 
convictions, unfortunately, do occur. In my view, we must continuously 
examine our judicial system to determine if new protections are 
available to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned for crimes they 
did not commit.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we need look no further than the 
Earl Washington case to understand that individuals can be convicted of 
crimes they did not commit. Washington, a mentally retarded man, spent 
more than a decade on death row after being convicted for the 1982 rape 
and murder of 19-year-old Rebecca Williams.
  In 1994, Governor Wilder commuted Washington's sentence to life in 
prison as a result of DNA test results. Since 1994, more sophisticated 
DNA tests became available, and these tests proved conclusively that 
Washington did not commit the rape and murder. As a result, last year, 
Governor Gilmore granted Washington a full pardon for this conviction. 
Subsequently, the Virginia General Assembly unanimously passed 
legislation signed into law by Governor Gilmore that allows for inmate 
access to post conviction DNA testing.
  Certainly, Earl Washington's case is not unique to Virginia. Wrongful 
convictions occur in both Federal and State courts all across the 
country. The Washington case, however, makes clear to me that post 
conviction DNA testing must be made more available.
  Over the last few years, DNA testing has proved to be a reliable 
means for identifying criminals when biological evidence exists. While 
DNA testing is standard in today's investigations, such technology was 
not available even a decade ago. DNA is more and more frequently used 
by prosecutors to prove guilt. In my view, it should also be made 
available to prove innocence. Access to post conviction DNA testing, in 
circumstances where DNA evidence can prove innocence, is of utmost 
importance to the administration of justice.
  In addition to increasing access to DNA testing, we must look at 
other ways to improve the administration of justice in our system. The 
Justice Project, a national non-profit organization focusing on 
identifying and solving issues of fairness in our judicial system, 
reports that since 1973, 95 people have been exonerated and released 
from death row. Of those 95 wrongful convictions, only 10 were 
discovered as a result of DNA testing. Thus, while access to DNA 
evidence is one new, important component that we must pursue to protect 
against wrongful convictions, it cannot be the only avenue we pursue.
  We have all read or heard about the horrific cases where individuals 
are convicted and sentenced to death after a trial where the defense 
attorney slept through portions of the case, was inexperienced in death 
penalty cases, or failed to even interview important witnesses. Such 
incompetency on the part of a defense attorney undoubtedly results in 
some wrongful convictions.
  Certainly, convicted defendants may appeal their conviction to a 
higher court based on the assertion that they were denied a 
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. However, I 
believe that our system, particularly in the highly complex capital 
punishment cases, can do a better job at ensuring effective assistance 
of counsel prior the time a case gets the appellate level.
  In this regard, I share the views of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor, who, in a recent speech, stated that perhaps it's time to 
look at the minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and 
adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used.
  Increasing access to post conviction DNA testing, and undertaking a 
closer examination of the issue of national, minimum standards for 
appointed counsel in death penalty cases, are two steps in the right 
direction to improving our judicial system and further protecting 
against wrongful convictions.
  My colleague, Senator Leahy, has joined with Senator Gordon Smith and 
Senator Collins in introducing legislation that improves access to post 
conviction DNA testing and provides for minimum standards for appointed 
counsel in death penalty cases. Today, I am pleased to join as a 
cosponsor of this important legislation, S. 486, the Innocence 
Protection Act.
  While I do believe that some technical improvements can be made to 
the Innocence Protection Act, I support its overall goal of additional, 
reasonable, protections against wrongful convictions.
  Specifically, the Innocence Protection Act contains provisions 
relating to habeas corpus reform. Under the bill, prisoners in States 
that do not adopt appointed counsel minimum competency standards will 
be subject to differing habeas corpus rules than prisoners in States 
which have adopted such standards. In my view, habeas corpus reform is 
outside the scope of this legislation, and the issue ought to be 
thoroughly examined by the Judiciary Committee and addressed in 
separate legislation.
  In addition, the Innocence Protection Act directs the Attorney 
General to withhold a portion of the funds awarded under the prison 
grant programs from death penalty States that have not established or 
maintained a system for providing legal representation in capital cases 
that satisfy the standards called for by this bill. In my view, a more 
appropriate way to encourage States to adopt minimum competency 
standards would be through awarding new grant money for those States 
that adopt such standards.
  Nevertheless, despite these differences, the goal of the Innocence 
Protection Act is an important one. I look forward to working with the 
sponsors of this legislation on these concerns, and look forward to 
working for passage of legislation that will further protect against 
wrongful convictions.

                          ____________________