[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 163 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4582-H4583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS ACT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (S. 1380) to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to
remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 1380
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Due Process Protections
Act''.
SEC. 2. REMINDER OF PROSECUTORIAL OBLIGATIONS.
Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Reminder of Prosecutorial Obligation.--
``(1) In general.--In all criminal proceedings, on the
first scheduled court date when both prosecutor and defense
counsel are present, the judge shall issue an oral and
written order to prosecution and defense counsel that
confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and
the possible consequences of violating such order under
applicable law.
``(2) Formation of order.--Each judicial council in which a
district court is located shall promulgate a model order for
the purpose of paragraph (1) that the court may use as it
determines is appropriate.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Armstrong) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
S. 1380, the Due Process Protection Act, introduced by Senators Dan
Sullivan and Dick Durbin and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate
this past May, is a narrowly tailored, bipartisan bill that would
reinforce the government's already existing constitutional obligation
to disclose exculpatory evidence. Sometimes, of course, that evidence
can be the difference between innocence and conviction and fairness to
both the government and the defendant.
The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires
that prosecutors disclose to the accused all favorable evidence that is
material. Unfortunately, at this time, there are inadequate safeguards
in Federal law to ensure that this practice is followed across the
country.
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, from 1989 to
2017, prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence at trial in half of
all murder exonerations. Although this statistic includes State
prosecutions, we know that exculpatory evidence is concealed in Federal
cases as well.
Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in criminal justice reform for a
very long time, and I have seen the damage that
[[Page H4583]]
not exposing or disclosing exculpatory evidence can do and how it is an
imbalance as it relates to defendants who happen to be Brown or Black.
That is unfair, and I know the America that I have come to know and
love understands that justice should be equal for all.
Again, one prominent example of the failure to disclose exculpatory
evidence was in the 2008 trial of then-Senator Ted Stevens. When it was
later revealed that the Justice Department had committed misconduct by
failing to turn over exculpatory evidence, the judge in that case
concluded that he could not sanction the prosecutors because he had not
issued a direct written court order requiring them to abide by their
ethical and constitutional obligations to disclose favorable evidence.
Many of us who knew that case, who knew Senator Stevens, knew, of
course, that he had experienced an injustice.
Following the Stevens case, in June 2018, the District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the case was tried, amended its local rules
to require prosecutors to comply with their disclosure obligations.
Other Federal districts had already and have since issued specific
local rules or standing orders that govern these obligations.
A 2011 survey by the Federal Judicial Center indicated that 38 of the
94 Federal districts had a local rule or standing order confirming the
government's obligation to disclose exculpatory and/or questioning the
credibility of witnesses, which is known as impeachment, material.
{time} 1445
To address this issue, the Due Process Protections Act would do three
things, three very vital things to the scales of justice: One, amend
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require that a judge issue
an order to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the
disclosure obligation of the prosecutors in every criminal case;
Two, require each judicial council in which a district court is
located to issue a model order that its courts can use at their
discretion; and,
Three, leave it to the courts in each district to detail the
parameters of their order.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with our Federal
judges in our jurisdiction over the years, and I know that our
discussions always fall on how we can enhance justice and be fair to
all parties in the courthouse.
Criminal justice winds up with the defendant, if convicted, to lose
their due process rights. Clearly, this is an important and significant
legislation that protects all parties, but particularly when someone is
subject to losing their due process rights or their freedom.
And so I support this legislation because, significantly, the bill
would not impose any new requirements on prosecutors. It would simply
require them to follow the Constitution or risk being sanctioned by the
court.
It is a breath of fresh air to see the Constitution being raised over
and over again for the good aspects of what American democracy is all
about. The pillars upon which it is built are clearly that of justice
and equality and fairness in our judicial system.
Accordingly, this is a straightforward and bipartisan measure that
would help our criminal justice system operate in a more effective and
fair manner.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1380, the Due Process
Protections Act.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will reinforce
constitutional protections for criminal defendants.
This bill amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require a
judge to issue a Brady order, reminding prosecutors of their obligation
to disclose all evidence that is material to the case, especially
exculpatory evidence.
Although some judges already have a practice of issuing Brady orders,
this bill will require all judges to issue it in all criminal
proceedings.
Our criminal justice system falls short when key evidence is withheld
by prosecutors and revealed years later at a conviction. Due process is
a fundamental right of all Americans; so is the right to a fair trial,
protected by the Constitution and this bill helps guarantee that
fundamental right.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for his leadership.
I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member of the full committee
and our subcommittee chairpersons and ranking members.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, as I indicated, it is with an
enormous sense of pride and recognition and a breath of fresh air when
we talk about the Constitution in this hallowed place, because this
House and the other body are grounded in our appreciation and adherence
to the Constitution.
That is what this bill is: due process protections and dealing with
the Bill of Rights, and the right to due process that we find in the
14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. So I am delighted that the Due
Process Protections Act is now recognized, and it is a commonsense,
bipartisan measure.
How much better we will be when all of the judicial districts require
exculpatory evidence to be presented, because then you know that you
have given all parties their fair chance, and someone who might lose
their liberty, you give them a fair chance by putting forward all of
the evidence that may be exculpatory.
So it is narrowly tailored to ensure that Federal prosecutors simply
follow the law, as they already should, in every case.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this breath of fresh air in
the recounting of the Constitution, a document that continues to live
in 2020 so that it will become law and order.
Again, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 1380.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________