[House Report 108-711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-711
======================================================================
JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004
_______
September 30, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5107]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 5107) to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the
substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes
and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing
capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to
increase research and development of new DNA testing
technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the
collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-conviction
testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve
the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Vote of the Committee............................................ 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 9
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 10
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 16
Markup Transcript................................................ 38
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 5107, the ``Justice For All Act of 2004,'' enhances
the rights and protections for all persons involved in the
criminal justice system. H.R. 5107 does this through two
different, but complementary mechanisms: (1) a new set of
statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court
of law and supported by fully-funded victims' assistance
programs; and (2) a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure
that the true offender is caught and convicted for the crime.
Title I enumerates eight rights for crime victims and
provides an enforcement mechanism for those rights. It also
authorizes $155 million in funding over the next 5 years for
victims' assistance programs at the Federal and state level.
Titles II, III, and IV address three interrelated DNA
problems. Title II will help to eliminate the large backlog of
DNA evidence that has not been analyzed. It also provides
resources to remedy the lack of training, equipment,
technology, and standards for handling DNA and other forensic
evidence. Title II addresses the backlog by reauthorizing and
expanding the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. It
increases the authorized funding levels for the DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination program to $151 million annually for the
next 5 years.
Title III authorizes funding for training for law
enforcement, correctional, court, and medical personnel on the
use of DNA evidence. Title III also authorizes grant programs
to reduce other forensic science backlogs, research new DNA
technology, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify
missing persons. Lastly, Title III provides funds to the
Federal Bureau Investigation (``FBI'') for the administration
of its DNA programs.
Title IV establishes rules for post-conviction DNA testing
of Federal prison inmates and requires the preservation of
biological evidence in Federal criminal cases while the
defendant remains incarcerated. It provides incentive grants to
States that adopt adequate procedures for providing post-
conviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence.
Additionally, it authorizes funding to help States provide
competent legal services for both the prosecution and the
defense in death penalty cases and provides funds for post-
conviction DNA testing.
Background and Need for the Legislation
BACKGROUND
A. Victims' Rights
In 2002, U.S. residents aged 12 or older experienced
approximately 23 million crimes, according to findings from the
National Crime Victimization Survey. Of those, 76% (17.5
million) were property crimes, 23% (5.3 million) were crimes of
violence, and 1% were personal thefts. In 2002, for every 1,000
persons aged 12 or older, one rape or sexual assault, one
assault with injury and two robberies occurred. Murders are the
least frequent violent crime--there were about 6 murder victims
per 100,000 persons in 2001. In surveys of 12 cities in 1998,
violent crime victimization rates per 1,000 residents aged 12
or older ranged from 60 in Washington, D.C. to 85 in New York
City. Nationally, the violent crime victimization rate in urban
areas was 51 per 1,000 residents.
Victims of crime often do not feel their voices are heard
or that their concerns are adequately addressed in the judicial
process. Many express frustration with a judicial system that
affords many rights to the accused while giving few to the
victim. This legislation addresses these concerns by codifying
the rights of victims and providing the means to enforce those
rights. Additionally, the victims' rights section of this
legislation provides grants to state and local governments to
provide legal assistance to victims of crimes and develop
state-of-the-art systems for notifying victims of important
dates and developments relating to criminal proceedings.
B. DNA Technology
In addition to their frustration with the judicial process,
victims of violent crime are often frustrated with the length
of time it takes to track down their attackers. DNA samples can
help to quickly track down offenders and solve crimes if law
enforcement agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing
capabilities. Currently, however, many law enforcement agencies
do not have the capacity to process DNA samples fast enough.
News stories extolling the successful use of DNA to solve
crimes abound. To give just a few examples, consider the
following. In 1999, New York City authorities linked a man
through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and
robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002, authorities in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado, used
DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated
by the same individual. In the 2001 ``Green River'' killings,
DNA evidence provided a major breakthrough in a series of
crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large law
enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.
DNA generally solves crimes in one of two ways. First, in
cases in which a suspect is identified, a sample of that
person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene.
The results of this comparison may help establish whether the
suspect committed the crime. Second, in cases in which a
suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from
the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender
profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator.
Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime
scenes through the use of DNA databases. In the late 1980's,
the Federal Government laid the groundwork for a system of
federal, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and
exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA
Index System (``CODIS''), maintains DNA profiles obtained under
the federal, state, and local systems in a set of databases
that are available to law enforcement agencies across the
country for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime
scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from
convicted offenders. CODIS can also link DNA evidence obtained
from different crime scenes, thereby identifying repeat
offenders.
To take advantage of the investigative potential of CODIS,
in the late 1980's and early 1990's, states began passing laws
requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide
DNA samples. Currently, all 50 states and the Federal
Government have laws requiring that DNA samples be collected
from some categories of offenders for inclusion in CODIS.
However, only certain types of profiles authorized under
Federal law may be uploaded to the Federal system. When used to
its full potential, DNA evidence will help solve and may even
prevent some of the most serious violent crimes.
In short, DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring
accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. It can
identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological
evidence exists, and it can clear suspects and exonerate
persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
A. Victims' Rights
Crime victims already have a listing of rights in Title 42
of the United States Code. However, because those rights are
not enumerated in the criminal code, most practitioners do not
even know these rights exist. Further, the rights as they are
currently enumerated do not contain any explicit enforcement
provision. As such, crime victims often feel that they are
ignored by a system that gives a great number of rights and
protections to the person accused of the crime, but few to the
victim. H.R. 5107 addresses these problems by moving the
victims' rights to Title 18 of the United States Code, where
they will be more readily available to practitioners. It also
amplifies the current rights and sets forth an explicit
enforcement mechanism for those rights. H.R. 5107 also provides
funding for legal counsel for victims to assist them in the
process and to ensure that these rights are enforced.
B. DNA Technology
Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and
state DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety
of problems. In many instances, public crime laboratories are
overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples--samples that
could be used to solve violent crimes if the states had the
funds to eliminate this backlog. Some estimates indicate that
DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime scenes has been
collected but never analyzed by a crime lab. In addition, many
of the laboratories are ill-equipped to handle the increasing
flow of DNA samples and evidence.
The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date
technology result in significant delays in the administration
of justice. The system needs more research to develop faster
methods to analyze DNA evidence. Legal and medical personnel
need additional training and assistance to ensure the optimal
use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. The
criminal justice system needs the means to provide DNA testing
in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert that
they have been wrongly convicted.
In addition to the benefits of DNA analysis, there are
benefits from the use of other forensic technology. Additional
funds are needed to allow grants to laboratories that perform
research and analysis in other types of forensic disciplines
such as firearms examinations, latent prints, toxicology,
controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable
documents, and trace evidence.
DNA testing has the capacity not only to identify the
perpetrators of crimes but also to exonerate the innocent. DNA
testing has revealed various wrongful convictions around the
country; however, DNA alone will not eliminate wrongful
convictions. Greater access to DNA testing is essential.
However, biological evidence that can establish guilt or
innocence is available in fewer than 20 percent of violent
crimes.
In addition to correcting the erroneous convictions that
DNA testing reveals, there are steps that can be taken to
prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. The single
most important of these is to ensure that every indigent
defendant has a competent attorney, particularly in capital
cases. Many of the most egregious cases of wrongful convictions
have involved attorneys who failed to inquire into the facts,
failed to present or challenge evidence at trial, or worse--
were drunk or asleep during key portions of the proceedings.
The provision of competent counsel benefits the prosecution
as well as the defense. As Oklahoma City prosecutor Beth
Wilkinson testified before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security last year, providing
defendants with a competent defense is the best way to ensure
``that the right person is convicted and justice is served,
that reversible error is avoided at trial, and that verdicts
for the government are upheld on appeal.'' However, such a
system must be funded. The Committee believes the Federal
Government should offer affirmative assistance and
encouragement to the States to adopt effective systems for the
appointment and performance of counsel, rather than imposing
new unfunded Federal mandates.
Hearings
No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on
H.R. 5107. However, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security held an oversight hearing on ``Advancing
Justice Through the Use of Forensic DNA Technology'' on July
23, 2003. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing
on the issue of victims' rights on September 30, 2003. This
legislation addresses both of these issues.
Committee Consideration
On September 22, 2004, the Committee met in open session
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5107 without
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 5107.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee notes that this
legislation provides new budgetary authority as outlined in the
Congressional Budget Office estimate printed in the next
section.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 5107, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5107, the
``Justice for All Act of 2004.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 5107--Justice for All Act of 2004.
SUMMARY
CBO estimates that H.R. 5107 would authorize the
appropriation of about $2 billion over the 2005-2009 period to
expand the use of DNA analysis in the criminal justice system
and to assist victims of crimes. (Most of that total is
specifically authorized in the bill.) The bill would establish
six new grant programs and extend the authority for two current
grant programs that provide funding for States to improve
forensic analysis of crime-scene evidence, collect DNA samples
from offenders, and train law enforcement personnel. The bill
would authorize appropriations for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) to carry out its programs concerning DNA
evidence, including the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and
would establish the National Forensic Science Commission. The
legislation also would provide funding for several Department
of Justice (DOJ) programs to assist victims of crimes. Finally,
H.R. 5107 would require the collection of DNA samples from
persons convicted of felonies.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 5107 would cost about $1.4
billion over the 2005-2009 period. Over $1 billion of this
total would be for the grant programs mentioned above. Enacting
this legislation could affect direct spending, but CBO
estimates that any such effects would not be significant.
H.R. 5107 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates
however, that State, local, and tribal governments would incur
no additional costs to comply with that mandate; therefore, the
threshold established in that act would not be exceeded ($60
million in 2004, adjusted annually for inflation). Other
provisions in the bill would benefit those governments.
H.R. 5107 contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5107 is shown in the
following table. The cost of this legislation falls within
budget function 750 (administration of justice).
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Spending Under Current Law for
the Programs
That Would Be Authorized By
H.R. 5107
Budget Authority/ 271 57 42 0 0 0
Authorization Level \2\
Estimated Outlays 165 118 86 60 15 6
Proposed Changes:
Grant Programs
Authorization Level 0 316 316 336 336 336
Estimated Outlays 0 69 164 232 285 330
FBI and National Forensic
Science Commission
Authorization Level 0 43 43 43 43 43
Estimated Outlays 0 34 43 43 43 43
DOJ Programs to Assist Crime
Victims
Authorization Level 0 21 34 34 34 34
Estimated Outlays 0 7 21 30 33 34
Additional DNA Samples from
Felons
Estimated Authorization 0 13 3 3 3 3
Level
Estimated Outlays 0 12 4 3 3 3
Total Changes \3\
Estimated Authorization 0 392 394 414 415 415
Level
Estimated Outlays 0 122 231 307 364 409
Spending Under H.R. 5107 \3\
Estimated Authorization 271 449 437 414 415 415
Level
Estimated Outlays 165 240 317 367 378 415
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In addition to the discretionary costs, enacting H.R. 5107 could
affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would
be less than $500,000 annually.
2. The 2004 level is the total amount appropriated for that year for the
programs that would be authorized by H.R. 5107. The 2005 and 2006
levels are the total amounts authorized in current law for those
programs.
3. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 5107 would cost $1.4 billion
over the 2005-2009 period. This legislation also could affect
direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would
not be significant.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized
for the grant programs, the FBI, the National Forensic Science
Commission, and the DOJ programs to assist victims of crimes
will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and
that outlays will follow the historical spending rates for
these or similar activities.
In addition, implementing H.R. 5107 would require the
federal government to collect DNA samples from each person who
has been convicted of a felony and who is in federal custody or
on federally supervised release. Currently, the government
collects DNA samples only from persons convicted of certain
violent crimes. Based on information from the Bureau of
Prisons, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
and the Department of Defense, CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 5107 would require the collection of roughly 200,000
additional samples in 2005 and over 40,000 samples in each
subsequent year. We expect that it would cost $60 to take each
DNA sample, so collection costs would total about $13 million
in fiscal year 2005 and $3 million a year over the 2006-2009
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Direct Spending
Enacting H.R. 5107 could increase direct spending by
raising the maximum compensation from $5,000 to $50,000 per
year of imprisonment that could be paid to certain persons
wrongly convicted of crimes by the federal government. Any such
payments would be made from the U.S. Treasury's Judgment Fund
and would be considered direct spending. The number of such
cases in recent years has been very small, so we do not expect
any increase in payments for this purpose to be significant.
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
H.R. 5107 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in UMRA because it would codify into federal law certain rights
for victims of crime in the District of Columbia. According to
court representatives, such rights are currently provided to
those victims under local statute; thus, the District of
Columbia would incur no additional costs to comply with that
mandate.
Other provisions in the bill would benefit State, local,
and tribal governments by authorizing the appropriation of more
than $1.5 billion in grants to those governments over fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. The bill would create six new grant
programs and reauthorize and expand two existing grants for DNA
analysis. It also would create several new grant programs to
protect victims' rights. Any costs to grant recipients would be
incurred voluntarily as conditions of receiving federal aid.
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR
H.R. 5107 contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATES
On October 16, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of
2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the
Judiciary on October 8, 2003. That legislation is very similar
to H.R. 5107, and we estimated that implementing H.R. 3214
would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2005-2008 period (with
additional amounts spent after 2008), assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
On September 29, 2004, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
S. 1700, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of
2004, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary on September 21, 2004. That legislation is very
similar to H.R. 5107 but would not provide funding for DOJ
programs to assist victims of crime. We estimate that
implementing S. 1700 would cost about $1.3 billion over the
2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:
Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
(225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2960)
ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:
Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of H.R. 5107 are to provide
crime victims with meaningful, enforceable rights in the
criminal justice system, to authorize grants to Federal and
state programs that promote victims' rights, and to authorize a
variety of grants to State and local governments to combat
crimes with DNA and other forensic technology and to provide
safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.
Title I of the bill provides a list of eight statutory
rights for crime victims, as well as providing an enforcement
mechanism for those rights. It also authorizes $155 million
over 5 years in funding for grants to improve victims'
assistance and legal support programs at both the Federal and
state levels.
Titles II and III of the bill include the Debbie Smith DNA
Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over 5
years to address the DNA backlog crisis in the nation's crime
labs. Additional grant programs are authorized to reduce other
forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical
personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of
DNA technology to identify missing persons. The Committee
expects State and local governments to use these grants to the
maximum extent possible to reduce DNA backlogs and to improve
their DNA and other forensic capabilities.
Title IV of the bill, the Innocence Protection Act,
provides access to post-conviction DNA testing in Federal cases
and provides $100 million over 5 years for a grant program for
States to improve the quality of legal representation in
capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of
wrongful conviction. In addition, the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-
Conviction DNA Testing Program authorizes $25 million for the
States over 5 years to defray the costs of post-conviction DNA
testing. The Committee expects federal, state, and local
authorities to use this money to the maximum extent possible to
reduce wrongful convictions and increase the quality of
representation in capital cases.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
The following discussion describes the bill as it was
introduced. The Committee reported the bill without amendment.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Section 1 of the bill sets forth the short title of the
bill as the ``Justice for All Act of 2004'' and sets out the
table of contents.
TITLE I. THE ``SCOTT CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE ROPER, WENDY PRESTON, LOUARNA
GILLIS, AND NILA LYNN CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT''
Section 101. Short Title.
This section sets forth the short title of Title I as the
``Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna
Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act.''
Section 102. Crime Victims' Rights.
This section amends Title 18 to codify eight statutory
rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system. Among
these rights are: the right to be reasonably protected from the
accused; the right to be notified of, and not excluded from,
public proceedings involving their case; the right to be heard
at release, plea, or sentencing; the right to confer with the
government attorney; the right to full and timely restitution;
the right to be free from unreasonable delays in proceedings;
and the right to respect. It requires Federal Government
agencies to make their best efforts to ensure that crime
victims are given these rights and to advise the victim of any
conflict in providing these rights.
Additionally, it allows a victim or the government, after a
Federal court denies its request for appropriate relief, to
apply for a writ of mandamus to a court of appeals to enforce
the rights outlined in this section. This section does not
allow a victim to reopen a plea or sentence or to receive a new
trial as relief, and it makes no changes in the law with
respect to victims' ability to get restitution.
Section 103 Increase Resources for Enforcement of Crime Victims'
Rights.
Section 103 authorizes $155 million in grants over 5 years
for a variety of victims assistance programs in the following
manner:
--$2 million in FY 2005 and $5 million annually for FY
2006-09 for Victim/Witness Assistance programs at the offices
of the United States Attorneys.
--$2 million for FY 2005 and $5 million annually for FY
2006-09 for the enhancement of the Victim Notification System
at the Department of Justice.
--$7 million for FY 2005 and $11 million annually for FY
2006-09 for organizations that provide legal counsel and
support services for victims both in the Federal Government and
in the states and tribal governments that have victims' rights
laws substantially equivalent to those provided in Sec. 102.
--$300,000 for FY 2005 and $500,000 annually for FY 2006-09
to the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime to
administer the grants.
--$5 million in FY 2005 and $7 million for FY 2006-09 for
the Office for Victims of Crime to support programs that will
create state-of-the-art victims' rights laws in the states and
provide compliance systems to ensure that victims are fairly
treated under those statutes.
--$5 million each for FY 2005-09 to develop state-of-the-
art crime victim notification systems.
Section 104. Reports.
Federal courts are required under this legislation to
collect data and report on the number of times a victim is
denied the rights provided in this section. Section 104 further
requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study not later
than 4 years after the date of enactment that assesses the
effect of the implementation of this Act on the treatment of
crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system.
TITLE II. THE ``DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2004''
Section 201. Short Title.
This section sets forth the short title of Title II as the
``Debbie Smith Act of 2004.''
Section 202. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
This section amends and expands the DNA Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 to allow for formula grants to states and units of
local governments for analyses of DNA samples and for
improvements to DNA laboratories. The language also makes it
explicit that these improvements may extend to samples from
rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence and
samples taken in cases without an identified suspect. This
section also adds the collection of DNA from convicted
offenders as a specific program purpose and clarifies that
funds can be used to increase the capacity of public labs.
Additionally, this section allows 1% of the funds to be used
for states or units of local governments to prepare for
accreditation or to perform audits of programs to ensure
compliance with Federal quality assurance standards.
This section authorizes $151 million each year from FY 2005
through FY 2009.
Section 203. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
This section amends the statute governing the Combined DNA
Index System (``CODIS'') to allow states to include in the DNA
index the DNA profiles of all persons whose DNA samples have
been collected under applicable legal authorities, including
those authorized by State law as well as all felons convicted
of Federal crimes and qualifying military offenses.
Section 204. Tolling of Statute of Limitations.
This section provides that, in a case in which DNA testing
implicates an identified person in the commission of a felony,
except for a felony offense under chapter 109A, no statute of
limitations would preclude prosecution of the offense until a
time period equal to the statute of limitations has elapsed
from the date of identification of the perpetrator.
Section 205. Legal Assistance for Victims of Violence.
This section expands the Violence Against Women Act to
allow the grant programs to be used to provide legal assistance
for victims of dating violence.
Section 206. Ensuring Private Laboratory Assistance in Eliminating DNA
Backlog.
This section amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 to ensure that states and local units of government
may use grant funds to contract with private for profit
companies to expedite DNA collection, analyses of DNA from
crime scenes, and elimination of any backlog.
TITLE III. THE ``DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2004''
Section 301. Short Title.
This section sets forth the short title of Title III as the
``DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004.''
Section 302. Ensuring Public Crime Laboratory Compliance with Federal
Standards.
This section requires that state and local government crime
labs undergo accreditation and auditing at least every 2 years
to ensure compliance with Federal standards that will be
established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Section 303. DNA Training and Education for Law Enforcement,
Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers.
This section authorizes $12.5 million per year for 5 years
to provide grants for training and education relating to the
identification, collection, preservation, and analysis of DNA
evidence for law enforcement, correctional personnel, court
officers including prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, and
forensic scientists.
Section 304. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants.
This section authorizes $30 million per year for 5 years to
create a grant program to provide training, technical
assistance, education, equipment, and information to medical
personnel relating to the identification, collection,
preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and evidence.
Section 305. DNA Research and Development.
This section authorizes $15 million per year for 5 years to
establish a National Forensic Science Commission and allows for
grants for demonstration projects to improve forensic DNA
technology.
Section 306. National Forensic Science Commission.
This section authorizes $500,000 for the National Forensic
Science Commission to be appointed by the Attorney General to
provide recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic
science technology.
Section 307. FBI DNA Programs.
This section authorizes $42.1 million in additional funds
for the FBI to carry out its DNA programs including nuclear DNA
analysis; mitochondrial DNA analysis; regional mitochondrial
DNA laboratories; the Combined DNA Index System; the Federal
convicted offender DNA program; and DNA research and
development.
Section 308. DNA Identification of Missing Persons.
This section authorizes $2 million per year for 5 years for
DNA identification of missing persons and unidentified human
remains.
Section 309. Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure or
Use of DNA Information.
This section expands the criminal code provisions which
criminalize unauthorized disclosure of DNA information to
criminalize the unauthorized ``use'' of such information, and
increases the potential fine to $100,000 for each criminal
offense.
Section 310. Tribal Coalition Grants.
This section authorizes grants to tribes for domestic
violence and sexual assault awareness under the Violence
Against Women Act.
Section 311. Creation of a New Forensic Backlog Elimination Grant
Program.
This section authorizes $10 million per year for 5 years
for grants to states, units of local governments, and tribal
governments to eliminate forensic science backlogs including
backlog in the analysis of firearms examinations, latent
prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology,
questionable documents, and trace evidence.
Section 312. Report to Congress.
This section requires the Attorney General to provide a
report to Congress within 3 years of the date of enactment
relating to progress in the implementation of Title I and II of
this bill.
TITLE IV. THE ``INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT''
Section 401. Short Title.
This section sets forth the short title of Title IV as the
``Innocence Protection Act of 2004.''
Section 411. Federal Post Conviction DNA Testing.
This section establishes new procedures for applications
for DNA testing by inmates in the Federal system. The new
procedures require a court to order DNA testing if: (1) an
applicant for testing asserts that he or she is actually
innocent of a qualifying offense, (2) the proposed DNA testing
would produce new material evidence that would support such an
assertion, and (3) it would create a reasonable probability
that the applicant did not commit the offense. Penalties are
established in the event that testing inculpates the applicant.
If the test results are exculpatory, the court must grant the
applicant's motion for a new trial or resentencing if the
evidence establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a
new trial would result in an acquittal of the offense at issue.
Additionally, this section seeks to preserve DNA evidence
by prohibiting the destruction of biological evidence in a
Federal criminal case while a defendant remains incarcerated
unless there is a waiver by the defendant or prior notification
to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed. Violations
of this section to prevent evidence from being tested or used
in court are punishable by imprisonment.
Section 412. The Kirk Bloodsworth Actual Innocence Grant Program.
Named for a death row inmate exonerated by DNA testing,
this section authorizes $5 million per year for 5 years to
provide grants to states for post conviction testing.
Section 413. Bonus Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of
Legitimate Claims of Actual Innocence.
This section reserves the grant funds in Sec. Sec. 203,
205, 207 and 303 of this bill for states that do the following:
(1) make post-conviction DNA testing available to any person
convicted of a State crime; (2) allow post conviction relief if
such testing excludes the defendant; and (3) preserve evidence
in relation to state cases.
Section 421. Capital Representation Improvement Grants.
This section establishes a grant program to States to
ensure effective representation in capital cases. Such a
program may include training for defense counsel who litigate
capital cases and establishment of qualifications standards for
such counsel. To receive funding, the States must adopt and
implement minimum standards for appointment of defense counsel
to represent defendants in a capital case.
Section 422. Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.
This section authorizes grants to States to improve the
representation by prosecutors in capital cases by requiring
States that receive funding to: establish training programs for
capital prosecutors; develop, implement, and enforce
appropriate standards and qualifications for such prosecutors
and assess their performance; establish programs under which
prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a
defendant is sentenced to death in order to identify cases in
which post-conviction DNA testing is appropriate; and assist
the families of murder victims.
Section 423. Applications.
This section requires States applying for grants under this
subtitle to provide a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan. The plan must reflect consultation with
the judiciary, the organized bar, and State and local
prosecutor and defender organizations, and establish as a
priority improvement in the quality of trial-level
representation of indigents charged with capital crimes and
trial-level prosecution of capital crimes to enhance the
reliability of capital trial verdicts. This section also
requires that funds received under this subtitle shall be
allocated equally between the capital prosecution and capital
representation improvement grants.
Section 424. State Reports.
This section requires states receiving funds under this
subtitle to provide an annual report to the Attorney General
explaining the activities funded under the grant and the
relationship to the grant program.
Section 425. Evaluations by Inspector General and Administrative
Remedies.
This section requires the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice to evaluate the States receiving funds
under this title and submit reports to the Attorney General
regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of the
grant. In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector General
must give priority to states at the highest risk of
noncompliance. If, after receiving a report from the Inspector
General, Attorney General finds that a state is not in
compliance, the Attorney General shall take a series of steps
to bring the state into compliance and report to Congress on
the results.
Section 426. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes $100 million per year for 5 years
to provide grants under this subsection.
Section 431. Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted.
This section increases the maximum amount of damages an
individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned from
$5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital cases and $100,000
per year in capital cases.
Section 432. Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State Death
Penalty Cases.
This section states that it is the sense of Congress that
States should provide compensation to those persons who are
wrongfully convicted.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Chap. Sec.
201. General provisions........................................ 3001
* * * * * * *
228A. Post-conviction DNA testing.............................. 3600
* * * * * * *
237. Crime victims' rights..................................... 3771
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS
Sec.
3281. Capital offenses.
* * * * * * *
3297. Cases involving DNA evidence.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence
In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified
person in the commission of a felony, no statute of limitations
that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the offense shall
preclude such prosecution until a period of time following the
implication of the person by DNA testing has elapsed that is
equal to the otherwise applicable limitation period.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
Sec.
3600. DNA testing.
3600A. Preservation of biological evidence.
Sec. 3600. DNA testing
(a) In General.--Upon a written motion by an individual
under a sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a
conviction for a Federal offense (referred to in this section
as the ``applicant''), the court that entered the judgment of
conviction shall order DNA testing of specific evidence if--
(1) the applicant asserts, under penalty of
perjury, that the applicant is actually innocent of--
(A) the Federal offense for which the
applicant is under a sentence of imprisonment
or death; or
(B) another Federal or State offense, if--
(i)(I) such offense was legally
necessary to make the applicant
eligible for a sentence as a career
offender under section 3559(e) or an
armed career offender under section
924(e), and exoneration of such offense
would entitle the applicant to a
reduced sentence; or
(II) evidence of such offense was
admitted during a Federal death
sentencing hearing and exoneration of
such offense would entitle the
applicant to a reduced sentence or new
sentencing hearing; and
(ii) in the case of a State
offense--
(I) the applicant
demonstrates that there is no
adequate remedy under State law
to permit DNA testing of the
specified evidence relating to
the State offense; and
(II) to the extent
available, the applicant has
exhausted all remedies
available under State law for
requesting DNA testing of
specified evidence relating to
the State offense;
(2) the specific evidence to be tested was secured
in relation to the investigation or prosecution of the
Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant's
assertion under paragraph (1);
(3) the specific evidence to be tested--
(A) was not previously subjected to DNA
testing and the applicant did not knowingly and
voluntarily waive the right to request DNA
testing of that evidence in a court proceeding
after the date of enactment of the Innocence
Protection Act of 2004; or
(B) was previously subjected to DNA testing
and the applicant is requesting DNA testing
using a new method or technology that is
substantially more probative than the prior DNA
testing;
(4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the
possession of the Government and has been subject to a
chain of custody and retained under conditions
sufficient to ensure that such evidence has not been
substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or
altered in any respect material to the proposed DNA
testing;
(5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in
scope, uses scientifically sound methods, and is
consistent with accepted forensic practices;
(6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense
that--
(A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative
defense presented at trial; and
(B) would establish the actual innocence of
the applicant of the Federal or State offense
referenced in the applicant's assertion under
paragraph (1);
(7) if the applicant was convicted following a
trial, the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in
the trial;
(8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific
evidence--
(A) would produce new material evidence to
support the theory of defense referenced in
paragraph (6); and
(B) assuming the DNA test result excludes
the applicant, would raise a reasonable
probability that the applicant did not commit
the offense;
(9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will
provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
(10) the applicant's motion is filed for the
purpose of demonstrating the applicant's actual
innocence of the Federal or State offense, and not to
delay the execution of the sentence or the
administration of justice.
(b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order;
Appointment of Counsel.--
(1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed
under subsection (a), the court shall--
(A) notify the Government; and
(B) allow the Government a reasonable time
period to respond to the motion.
(2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to
carry out proceedings under this section, the court
shall direct the Government to preserve the specific
evidence relating to a motion under subsection (a).
(3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint
counsel for an indigent applicant under this section in
the same manner as in a proceeding under section
3006A(a)(2)(B).
(c) Testing Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The court shall direct that any
DNA testing ordered under this section be carried out
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
court may order DNA testing by another qualified
laboratory if the court makes all necessary orders to
ensure the integrity of the specific evidence and the
reliability of the testing process and test results.
(3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA 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 Government.
(d) 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 60 days after the
date on which the Government responds to the motion
filed under subsection (a); and
(2) not later than 120 days after the date on which
the DNA testing ordered under this section is
completed, the court shall order any post-testing
procedures under subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.
(e) Reporting of Test Results.--
(1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing
ordered under this section shall be simultaneously
disclosed to the court, the applicant, and the
Government.
(2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test
results relating to the DNA of the applicant to the
National DNA Index System (referred to in this
subsection as ``NDIS'').
(3) Retention of dna sample.--
(A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test
results obtained under this section are
inconclusive or show that the applicant was the
source of the DNA evidence, the DNA sample of
the applicant may be retained in NDIS.
(B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA
test results obtained under this section
exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA
evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample of
the applicant results in a match between the
DNA sample of the applicant and another
offense, the Attorney General shall notify the
appropriate agency and preserve the DNA sample
of the applicant.
(C) No match.--If the DNA test results
obtained under this section exclude the
applicant as the source of the DNA evidence,
and a comparison of the DNA sample of the
applicant does not result in a match between
the DNA sample of the applicant and another
offense, the Attorney General shall destroy the
DNA sample of the applicant and ensure that
such information is not retained in NDIS if
there is no other legal authority to retain the
DNA sample of the applicant in NDIS.
(f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory
Results.--
(1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results
obtained under this section are inconclusive, the court
may order further testing, if appropriate, or may deny
the applicant relief.
(2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results
obtained under this section show that the applicant was
the source of the DNA evidence, the court shall--
(A) deny the applicant relief; and
(B) on motion of the Government--
(i) make a determination whether
the applicant's assertion of actual
innocence was false, and, if the court
makes such a finding, the court may
hold the applicant in contempt;
(ii) assess against the applicant
the cost of any DNA testing carried out
under this section;
(iii) forward the finding to the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, who,
upon receipt of such a finding, may
deny, wholly or in part, the good
conduct credit authorized under section
3632 on the basis of that finding;
(iv) if the applicant is subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States
Parole Commission, forward the finding
to the Commission so that the
Commission may deny parole on the basis
of that finding; and
(v) if the DNA test results relate
to a State offense, forward the finding
to any appropriate State official.
(3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant
under chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct
in proceedings under this section, the court, upon
conviction of the applicant, shall sentence the
applicant to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3
years, which shall run consecutively to any other term
of imprisonment the applicant is serving.
(g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or
Resentencing.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would
bar a motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA
test results obtained under this section exclude the
applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, the
applicant may file a motion for a new trial or
resentencing, as appropriate. The court shall establish
a reasonable schedule for the applicant to file such a
motion and for the Government to respond to the motion.
(2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or
resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the
applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as
appropriate, if the DNA test results, when considered
with all other evidence in the case (regardless of
whether such evidence was introduced at trial),
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a new
trial would result in an acquittal of--
(A) in the case of a motion for a new
trial, the Federal offense for which the
applicant is under a sentence of imprisonment
or death; and
(B) in the case of a motion for
resentencing, another Federal or State offense,
if--
(i) such offense was legally
necessary to make the applicant
eligible for a sentence as a career
offender under section 3559(e) or an
armed career offender under section
924(e), and exoneration of such offense
would entitle the applicant to a
reduced sentence; or
(ii) evidence of such offense was
admitted during a Federal death
sentencing hearing and exoneration of
such offense would entitle the
applicant to a reduced sentence or a
new sentencing proceeding.
(h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
(1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this
section shall affect the circumstances under which a
person may obtain DNA testing or post-conviction relief
under any other law.
(2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall
provide a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus
proceeding.
(3) Application not a motion.--An application under
this section shall not be considered to be a motion
under section 2255 for purposes of determining whether
the application or any other motion is a second or
successive motion under section 2255.
Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Government shall preserve biological evidence that was
secured in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal
offense, if a defendant is under a sentence of imprisonment for
such offense.
(b) Defined Term.--For purposes of this section, the term
``biological evidence'' means--
(1) a sexual assault forensic examination kit; or
(2) semen, blood, saliva, hair, skin tissue, or
other identified biological material.
(c) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
(1) a court has denied a request or motion for DNA
testing of the biological evidence by the defendant
under section 3600, and no appeal is pending;
(2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived
the right to request DNA testing of such evidence in a
court proceeding conducted after the date of enactment
of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004;
(3) the defendant is notified after conviction that
the biological evidence may be destroyed and the
defendant does not file a motion under section 3600
within 180 days of receipt of the notice; or
(4)(A) the evidence must be returned to its
rightful owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical
character as to render retention impracticable; and
(B) the Government takes reasonable measures to
remove and preserve portions of the material evidence
sufficient to permit future DNA testing.
(d) Other Preservation Requirement.--Nothing in this
section shall preempt or supersede any statute, regulation,
court order, or other provision of law that may require
evidence, including biological evidence, to be preserved.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, the Attorney
General shall promulgate regulations to implement and enforce
this section, including appropriate disciplinary sanctions to
ensure that employees comply with such regulations.
(f) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly and intentionally
destroys, alters, or tampers with biological evidence that is
required to be preserved under this section with the intent to
prevent that evidence from being subjected to DNA testing or
prevent the production or use of that evidence in an official
proceeding, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or both.
(g) Habeas Corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide a
basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 237--CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Sec.
3771. Crime victims' rights.
Sec. 3771. Crime victims' rights
(a) Rights of Crime Victims.--A crime victim has the
following rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the
accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely
notice of any public court proceeding involving the
crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such
public court proceeding, unless the court determines
that testimony by the victim would be materially
affected if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public
proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the
attorney for the Government in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as
provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable
delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with
respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
(b) Rights Afforded.--In any court proceeding involving an
offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the
crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection
(a). Before denying a crime victim the right described in
subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit
the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall
consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim
from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision
denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on
the record.
(c) Best Efforts to Accord Rights.--
(1) Government.--Officers and employees of the
Department of Justice and other departments and
agencies of the United States engaged in the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their
best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of,
and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).
(2) Advice of attorney.--The prosecutor shall
advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek
the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights
described in subsection (a).
(3) Notice.--Notice of release otherwise required
pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if such
notice may endanger the safety of any person.
(d) Enforcement and Limitations.--
(1) Rights.--The crime victim or the crime victim's
lawful representative, and the attorney for the
Government may assert the rights described in
subsection (a). A person accused of the crime may not
obtain any form of relief under this chapter.
(2) Multiple crime victims.--In a case where the
court finds that the number of crime victims makes it
impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the
rights described in subsection (a), the court shall
fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this
chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the
proceedings.
(3) Motion for relief and writ of mandamus.--The
rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in
the district court in which a defendant is being
prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is
underway, in the district court in the district in
which the crime occurred. The district court shall take
up and decide such motion forthwith. If the district
court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition
the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court
of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single
judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up
and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours
after the petition has been filed. In no event shall
proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of
more than five day, or affect the defendant's right to
a speedy trial, for purposes of enforcing this chapter.
(4) Error.--In any appeal in a criminal case, the
Government may assert as error the district court's
denial of any crime victim's right in the proceeding to
which the appeal relates.
(5) Limitation on relief.--In no case shall a
failure to afford a right under this chapter provide
grounds for a new trial, or to reopen a plea or a
sentence, except in the case of restitution as provided
in title 18.
(6) No cause of action.--Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for
damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty
or obligation to any victim or other person for the
breach of which the United States or any of its
officers or employees could be held liable in damages.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair
the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or
any officer under his direction.
(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this chapter, the
term ``crime victim'' means a person directly and proximately
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an
offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a crime
victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent,
incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime
victim or the representatives of the crime victim's estate,
family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by
the court, may assume the crime victim's rights under this
chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such
guardian or representative.
(f) Procedures to Promote Compliance.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this chapter, the Attorney General
of the United States shall promulgate regulations to
enforce the rights of crime victims and to ensure
compliance by responsible officials with the
obligations described in law respecting crime victims.
(2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) designate an administrative authority
within the Department of Justice to receive and
investigate complaints relating to the
provision or violation of the rights of a crime
victim;
(B) require a course of training for
employees and offices of the Department of
Justice that fail to comply with provisions of
Federal law pertaining to the treatment of
crime victims, and otherwise assist such
employees and offices in responding more
effectively to the needs of crime victims;
(C) contain disciplinary sanctions,
including suspension or termination from
employment, for employees of the Department of
Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to
comply with provisions of Federal law
pertaining to the treatment of crime victims;
and
(D) provide that the Attorney General, or
the designee of the Attorney General, shall be
the final arbiter of the complaint, and that
there shall be no judicial review of the final
decision of the Attorney General by a
complainant.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 502 OF THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND RESTITUTION ACT OF 1990
[SEC. 502. VICTIMS' RIGHTS.
[(a) Best Efforts to Accord Rights.--Officers and employees
of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies
of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation,
or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see
that victims of crime are accorded the rights described in
subsection (b).
[(b) Rights of Crime Victims.--A crime victim has the
following rights:
[(1) The right to be treated with fairness and with
respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
[(2) The right to be reasonably protected from the
accused offender.
[(3) The right to be notified of court proceedings.
[(4) The right to be present at all public court
proceedings related to the offense, unless the court
determines that testimony by the victim would be
materially affected if the victim heard other testimony
at trial.
[(5) The right to confer with attorney for the
Government in the case.
[(6) The right to restitution.
[(7) The right to information about the conviction,
sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender.
[(c) No Cause of Action or Defense.--This section does not
create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person
arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the rights
enumerated in subsection (b).]
----------
VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER XIV--VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1404D. CRIME VICTIMS LEGAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, jails,
and correctional institutions, and to qualified public and
private entities, to develop, establish, and maintain programs
for the enforcement of crime victims' rights as provided in
law.
(b) Prohibition.--Grant amounts under this section may not
be used to bring a cause of action for damages.
(c) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 through
3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the
``False Claims Act''), may be used for grants under this
section, subject to appropriation.
SEC. 1404E. CRIME VICTIMS NOTIFICATION GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, jails,
and correctional institutions, and to qualified public or
private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-art
systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates and
developments relating to the criminal proceedings at issue in a
timely and efficient manner, provided that the jurisdiction has
laws substantially equivalent to the provisions of chapter 237
of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and
implemented under this section may be integrated with existing
case management systems operated by the recipient of the grant.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds
made available under section 1402(d), there are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(2) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006,
2007, 2008, and 2009.
(d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 through
3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the
``False Claims Act''), may be used for grants under this
section, subject to appropriation.
* * * * * * *
----------
DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.]
SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General may make
grants to eligible States or units of local government for use
by the State or unit of local government for the following
purposes:
(1) * * *
(2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined
DNA Index System, DNA analyses of samples from crime
scenes, including samples from rape kits, samples from
other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in
cases without an identified suspect.
(3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned
by the State or by units of local government [within
the State] to carry out DNA analyses of samples
specified in paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) To collect DNA samples specified in paragraph
(1).
(5) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of
samples from crimes, including sexual assault and other
serious violent crimes, are carried out in a timely
manner.
(b) Eligibility.--For a State or unit of local government
to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, the chief
executive officer of the State or unit of local government
shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such
form and containing such information as the Attorney General
may require. The application shall, as required by the Attorney
General--
(1) provide assurances that the State or unit of
local government has implemented, or will implement not
later than 120 days after the date of such application,
a comprehensive plan for the expeditious DNA analysis
of samples in accordance with this section;
* * * * * * *
(3) include a certification that the State or unit
of local government has determined, by statute, rule,
or regulation, those offenses under State law that
shall be treated for purposes of this section as
qualifying State offenses;
(4) specify the allocation that the State or unit
of local government shall make, in using grant amounts
to carry out DNA analyses of samples, as between
samples specified in subsection (a)(1) and samples
specified in subsection (a)(2); [and]
(5) specify that portion of grant amounts that the
State or unit of local government shall use for the
purpose specified in subsection (a)(3)[.];
(6) if submitted by a unit of local government,
certify that the unit of local government has taken, or
is taking, all necessary steps to ensure that it is
eligible to include, directly or through a State law
enforcement agency, all analyses of samples for which
it has requested funding in the Combined DNA Index
System; and
(7) specify that portion of grant amounts that the
State or unit of local government shall use for the
purpose specified in subsection (a)(4).
[(c) Crimes Without Suspects.--A State that proposes to
allocate grant amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection
(b) for the purposes specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (a) shall use such allocated amounts to conduct or
facilitate DNA analyses of those samples that relate to crimes
in connection with which there are no suspects.]
(c) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall
distribute grant amounts, and establish appropriate
grant conditions under this section, in conformity with
a formula or formulas that are designed to effectuate a
distribution of funds among eligible States and units
of local government that--
(A) maximizes the effective utilization of
DNA technology to solve crimes and protect
public safety; and
(B) allocates grants among eligible
entities fairly and efficiently to address
jurisdictions in which significant backlogs
exist, by considering--
(i) the number of offender and
casework samples awaiting DNA analysis
in a jurisdiction;
(ii) the population in the
jurisdiction; and
(iii) the number of part 1 violent
crimes in the jurisdiction.
(2) Minimum amount.--The Attorney General shall
allocate to each State not less than 0.50 percent of
the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year for
grants under this section, except that the United
States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.125
percent of the total appropriation.
(3) Limitation.--Grant amounts distributed under
paragraph (1) shall be awarded to conduct DNA analyses
of samples from casework or from victims of crime under
subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the following
limitations:
(A) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 50
percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded
for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
(B) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 50
percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded
for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
(C) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 45
percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded
for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
(D) For fiscal year 2008, not less than 40
percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded
for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
(E) For fiscal year 2009, not less than 40
percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded
for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
(d) Analysis of Samples.--
(1) In general.--[The plan] A plan pursuant to
subsection (b)(1) shall require that, except as
provided in paragraph (3), each DNA analysis be carried
out in a laboratory that satisfies quality assurance
standards and is--
(A) operated by the State or a unit of
local government [within the State]; or
(B) operated by a private entity pursuant
to a contract with the State or a unit of local
government [within the State].
(2) Quality assurance standards.--(A) The Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall maintain
and make available to States and units of local
government a description of quality assurance protocols
and practices that the Director considers adequate to
assure the quality of a forensic laboratory.
* * * * * * *
[(3) Use of vouchers for certain purposes.--A grant
for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) may be made in the form of a voucher for
laboratory services, which may be redeemed at a
laboratory operated by a private entity approved by the
Attorney General that satisfies quality assurance
standards. The Attorney General may make payment to
such a laboratory for the analysis of DNA samples using
amounts authorized for those purposes under subsection
( j).]
(3) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain
purposes.--
(A) In general.--A grant for the purposes
specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of
subsection (a) may be made in the form of a
voucher or contract for laboratory services.
(B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract
under subparagraph (A) may be redeemed at a
laboratory operated by a private entity that
satisfies quality assurance standards and has
been approved by the Attorney General.
(C) Payments.--The Attorney General may use
amounts authorized under subsection (j) to make
payments to a laboratory described under
subparagraph (B).
(e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Nonsupplanting.--Funds made available pursuant
to this section shall not be used to supplant State or
local government funds, but shall be used to increase
the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
Federal funds, be made available from State or local
government sources for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Administrative costs.--A State or unit of local
government may not use more than 3 percent of the funds
it receives from this section for administrative
expenses.
(f ) Reports to the Attorney General.--Each State or unit
of local government which receives a grant under this section
shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year in which
funds from a grant received under this section is expended, a
report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General
may reasonably require, which contains--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this
section, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a
report that includes--
(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this
section to each State or unit of local government for
such fiscal year; [and]
(2) a summary of the information provided by States
or units of local government receiving grants under
this section[.]; and
(3) a description of the priorities and plan for
awarding grants among eligible States and units of
local government, and how such plan will ensure the
effective use of DNA technology to solve crimes and
protect public safety.
(h) Expenditure Records.--
(1) In general.--Each State or unit of local
government which receives a grant under this section
shall keep records as the Attorney General may require
to facilitate an effective audit of the receipt and use
of grant funds received under this section.
(2) Access.--Each State or unit of local government
which receives a grant under this section shall make
available, for the purpose of audit and examination,
such records as are related to the receipt or use of
any such grant.
* * * * * * *
( j) Authorization of Appropriations.--Amounts are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for
grants under subsection (a) as follows:
[(1) For grants for the purposes specified in
paragraph (1) of such subsection--
[(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
[(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
[(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
[(2) For grants for the purposes specified in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of such subsection--
[(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
[(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
[(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
[(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.]
(1) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(3) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(4) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(5) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(k) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The
Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of the
grant amounts under subsection (j)--
(1) to States or units of local government to
defray the costs incurred by laboratories operated by
each such State or unit of local government in
preparing for accreditation or reaccreditation;
(2) in the form of additional grants to States,
units of local government, or nonprofit professional
organizations of persons actively involved in forensic
science and nationally recognized within the forensic
science community--
(A) to defray the costs of external audits
of laboratories operated by such State or unit
of local government, which participates in the
National DNA Index System, to determine whether
the laboratory is in compliance with quality
assurance standards;
(B) to assess compliance with any plans
submitted to the National Institute of Justice,
which detail the use of funds received by
States or units of local government under this
Act; and
(C) to support future capacity building
efforts; and
(3) in the form of additional grants to nonprofit
professional associations actively involved in forensic
science and nationally recognized within the forensic
science community to defray the costs of training
persons who conduct external audits of laboratories
operated by States and units of local government and
which participate in the National DNA Index System.
(l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--In the event
that a laboratory operated by a State or unit of local
government which has received funds under this Act has
undergone an external audit conducted to determine whether the
laboratory is in compliance with standards established by the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as a
result of such audit, identifies measures to remedy
deficiencies with respect to the compliance by the laboratory
with such standards, the State or unit of local government
shall implement any such remediation as soon as practicable.
SEC. 3. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM
CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFENDERS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--(1) The offenses that
shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying
Federal offenses are the following offenses under title 18,
United States Code, as determined by the Attorney General:
[(A) Murder (as described in section 1111 of such
title), voluntary manslaughter (as described in section
1112 of such title), or other offense relating to
homicide (as described in chapter 51 of such title,
sections 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121).
[(B) An offense relating to sexual abuse (as
described in chapter 109A of such title, sections 2241
through 2245), to sexual exploitation or other abuse of
children (as described in chapter 110 of such title,
sections 2251 through 2252), or to transportation for
illegal sexual activity (as described in chapter 117 of
such title, sections 2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425).
[(C) An offense relating to peonage and slavery (as
described in chapter 77 of such title).
[(D) Kidnapping (as defined in section
3559(c)(2)(E) of such title).
[(E) An offense involving robbery or burglary (as
described in chapter 103 of such title, sections 2111
through 2114, 2116, and 2118 through 2119).
[(F) Any violation of section 1153 involving
murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony
offense relating to sexual abuse (as described in
chapter 109A), incest, arson, burglary, or robbery.
[(G) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
above offenses.
[(2) In addition to the offenses described in
paragraph (1), the following offenses shall be treated
for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal
offenses, as determined by the Attorney General:
[(A) Any offense listed in section
2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code.
[(B) Any crime of violence (as defined in
section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
[(C) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit
any of the above offenses.]
(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--The offenses that shall
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal
offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the
Attorney General:
(1) Any felony.
(2) Any offense under chapter 109A of title 18,
United States Code.
(3) Any crime of violence (as that term is defined
in section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
(4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
offenses in paragraphs (1) through (3).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 10. PRIVACY PROTECTION STANDARDS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly--
[(1) discloses a sample or result described in
subsection (a) in any manner to any person not
authorized to receive it; or
[(2) obtains, without authorization, a sample or
result described in subsection (a),
shall be fined not more than $100,000.]
(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly discloses a
sample or result described in subsection (a) in any manner to
any person not authorized to receive it, or obtains or uses,
without authorization, such sample or result, shall be fined
not more than $100,000. Each instance of disclosure, obtaining,
or use shall constitute a separate offense under this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 210304 OF THE DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT OF 1994
SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE OF DNA
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
(a) Establishment of Index.--The Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation may establish an index of--
(1) DNA identification records [of persons
convicted of crimes;] of--
(A) persons convicted of crimes;
(B) persons who have been indicted or who
have waived indictment for a crime; and
(C) other persons whose DNA samples are
collected under applicable legal authorities,
provided that DNA profiles from arrestees who
have not been indicted and DNA samples that are
voluntarily submitted solely for elimination
purposes shall not be included in the Combined
DNA Index System;
* * * * * * *
(b) Information.--The index described in subsection (a)
shall include only information on DNA identification records
and DNA analyses that are--
(1) * * *
[(2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts,
that undergo semiannual external proficiency testing by
a DNA proficiency testing program meeting the standards
issued under section 210303; and]
(2) prepared by laboratories that--
(A) not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice
Act of 2004, have been accredited by a
nonprofit professional association of persons
actively involved in forensic science that is
nationally recognized within the forensic
science community; and
(B) undergo external audits, not less than
once every 2 years, that demonstrate compliance
with standards established by the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
* * * * * * *
(d) Expungement of Records.--
(1) * * *
(2) By states.--(A) As a condition of access to the
index described in subsection (a), a State shall
promptly expunge from that index the DNA analysis of a
person included in the index by that State [if the
responsible agency] if--
(i) the responsible agency or
official of that State receives, for
each conviction of the person of an
offense on the basis of which that
analysis was or could have been
included in the index, a certified copy
of a final court order establishing
that such conviction has been
overturned[.]; or
(ii) the person has not been convicted of
an offense on the basis of which that analysis
was or could have been included in the index,
and all charges for which the analysis was or
could have been included in the index have been
dismissed or resulted in acquittal.
* * * * * * *
(e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any
person who is authorized to access the index described
in subsection (a) for purposes of including information
on DNA identification records or DNA analyses in that
index may also access that index for purposes of
carrying out a one-time keyboard search on information
obtained from any DNA sample lawfully collected for a
criminal justice purpose except for a DNA sample
voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term ``keyboard search'' means a search under which
information obtained from a DNA sample is compared with
information in the index without resulting in the
information obtained from a DNA sample being included
in the index.
(3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be
construed to preempt State law.
----------
SECTION 1565 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 1565. DNA identification information: collection from certain
offenders; use
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Attorney General, shall determine those felony or sexual
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that shall
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military
offenses.
[(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense (as
determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000), as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall be treated for
purposes of this section as a qualifying military offense.]
(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--The offenses that shall
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military
offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney
General:
(1) Any offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more
than one year may be imposed.
(2) Any other offense under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice that is comparable to a qualifying
Federal offense (as determined under section 3(d) of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 14135a(d))).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1201 OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000
SEC. 1201. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.
(a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to enable
the Attorney General to award grants to increase the
availability of legal assistance necessary to provide effective
aid to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking,
or sexual assault who are seeking relief in legal matters
arising as a consequence of that abuse or violence, at minimal
or no cost to the victims.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Dating violence.--The term ``dating violence''
means violence committed by a person who is or has been
in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate
nature with the victim. The existence of such a
relationship shall be determined based on a
consideration of--
(A) the length of the relationship;
(B) the type of relationship; and
(C) the frequency of interaction between
the persons involved in the relationship.
[(1)] (2) Domestic violence.--The term ``domestic
violence'' has the meaning given the term in section
2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
[(2)] (3) Legal assistance for victims.--The term
``legal assistance'' includes assistance to victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and
sexual assault in family, immigration, administrative
agency, or housing matters, protection or stay away
order proceedings, and other similar matters. No funds
made available under this section may be used to
provide financial assistance in support of any
litigation described in paragraph (14) of section 504
of Public Law 104-134.
[(3)] (4) Sexual assault.--The term ``sexual
assault'' has the meaning given the term in section
2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
(c) Legal Assistance for Victims Grants.--The Attorney
General may award grants under this subsection to private
nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and publicly
funded organizations not acting in a governmental capacity such
as law schools, and which shall be used--
(1) to implement, expand, and establish cooperative
efforts and projects between domestic violence, dating
violence, and sexual assault victim services
organizations and legal assistance providers to provide
legal assistance for victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
(2) to implement, expand, and establish efforts and
projects to provide legal assistance for victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and
sexual assault by organizations with a demonstrated
history of providing direct legal or advocacy services
on behalf of these victims; and
(3) to provide training, technical assistance, and
data collection to improve the capacity of grantees and
other entities to offer legal assistance to victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and
sexual assault.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (c), applicants shall certify in writing that--
(1) any person providing legal assistance through a
program funded under subsection (c) has completed or
will complete training in connection with domestic
violence, dating violence, or sexual assault and
related legal issues;
(2) any training program conducted in satisfaction
of the requirement of paragraph (1) has been or will be
developed with input from and in collaboration with a
State, local, or tribal domestic violence, dating
violence, or sexual assault program or coalition, as
well as appropriate State and local law enforcement
officials;
(3) any person or organization providing legal
assistance through a program funded under subsection
(c) has informed and will continue to inform State,
local, or tribal domestic violence, dating violence, or
sexual assault programs and coalitions, as well as
appropriate State and local law enforcement officials
of their work; and
(4) the grantee's organizational policies do not
require mediation or counseling involving offenders and
victims physically together, in cases where sexual
assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or child
sexual abuse is an issue.
(e) Evaluation.--The Attorney General may evaluate the
grants funded under this section through contracts or other
arrangements with entities expert on domestic violence, dating
violence, stalking, and sexual assault, and on evaluation
research.
(f ) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) * * *
(2) Allocation of funds.--
(A) Tribal programs.--Of the amount made
available under this subsection in each fiscal
year, not less than 5 percent shall be used for
grants for programs that assist victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking,
and sexual assault on lands within the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
* * * * * * *
----------
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
* * * * * * *
Part J--Funding
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 1001. (a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(24) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part BB, to remain available until expended--
(A) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(C) $134,733,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(D) $128,067,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(E) $56,733,000 for fiscal year 2005; [and]
(F) $42,067,000 for fiscal year 2006[.];
(G) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(H) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(I) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(25)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), there are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out part EE--
(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(ii) $54,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(iii) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(iv) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(B) The Attorney General shall reserve not less than 1
percent and not more than 4.5 percent of the sums appropriated
for this program in each fiscal year for research and
evaluation of this program.
(C) No funds made available to carry out part EE shall be
expended if the Attorney General fails to submit the report
required to be submitted under section 2401(c) of title II of
Division B of the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act.
* * * * * * *
Part T--Grants To Combat Violent Crimes Against Women
SEC. 2001. PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM AND GRANTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Tribal Coalition Grants.--
(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award
grants to tribal domestic violence and sexual assault
coalitions for purposes of--
(A) increasing awareness of domestic
violence and sexual assault against Indian
women;
(B) enhancing the response to violence
against Indian women at the tribal, Federal,
and State levels; and
(C) identifying and providing technical
assistance to coalition membership and tribal
communities to enhance access to essential
services to Indian women victimized by domestic
and sexual violence.
(2) Grants to tribal coalitions.--The Attorney
General shall award grants under paragraph (1) to--
(A) established nonprofit, nongovernmental
tribal coalitions addressing domestic violence
and sexual assault against Indian women; and
(B) individuals or organizations that
propose to incorporate as nonprofit,
nongovernmental tribal coalitions to address
domestic violence and sexual assault against
Indian women.
(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an
award under this subsection by tribal domestic violence
and sexual assault coalitions shall not preclude the
coalition from receiving additional grants under this
title to carry out the purposes described in subsection
(b).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2007. STATE GRANTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Amounts.--Of the amounts appropriated for the purposes
of this part--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) \1/54\ shall be available for the development
and operation of nonprofit tribal domestic violence and
sexual assault coalitions in Indian country;]
(4) \1/54\ shall be available for grants under
section 2001(d);
* * * * * * *
PART BB--PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.
To request a grant under this part, a State or unit of
local government shall submit to the Attorney General--
(1) * * *
(2) a certification that any forensic science
laboratory system, medical examiner's office, or
coroner's office in the State, including any laboratory
operated by a unit of local government within the
State, that will receive any portion of the grant
amount uses generally accepted laboratory practices and
procedures, established by accrediting organizations or
appropriate certifying bodies; [and]
(3) a specific description of any new facility to
be constructed as part of the program for a State or
local plan described in paragraph (1), and the
estimated costs of that facility, and a certification
that the amount of the grant used for the costs of the
facility will not exceed the limitations set forth in
section 2804(c)[.]; and
(4) a certification that a government entity exists
and an appropriate process is in place to conduct
independent external investigations into allegations of
serious negligence or misconduct substantially
affecting the integrity of the forensic results
committed by employees or contractors of any forensic
laboratory system, medical examiner's office, coroner's
office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical
facility in the State that will receive a portion of
the grant amount.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.
(a) In General.--A State or unit of local government that
receives a grant under this part [shall use the grant to carry
out] shall use the grant to do any one or more of the
following:
(1) To carry out all or a substantial part of a
program intended to improve the quality and timeliness
of forensic science or medical examiner services in the
State, including such services provided by the
laboratories operated by the State and those operated
by units of local government within the State.
(2) To eliminate a backlog in the analysis of
forensic science evidence, including firearms
examination, latent prints, toxicology, controlled
substances, forensic pathology, questionable documents,
and trace evidence.
(3) To train, assist, and employ forensic
laboratory personnel, as needed, to eliminate such a
backlog.
(b) Permitted Categories of Funding.--Subject to
subsections (c) and (d), a grant awarded [under this part] for
the purpose set forth in subsection (a)(1)--
(1) may only be used for program expenses relating
to facilities, personnel, computerization, equipment,
supplies, accreditation and certification, education,
and training; and
(2) may not be used for any general law enforcement
or nonforensic investigatory function.
* * * * * * *
(e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a
backlog in the analysis of forensic science evidence exists if
such evidence--
(1) has been stored in a laboratory, medical
examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement
storage facility, or medical facility; and
(2) has not been subjected to all appropriate
forensic testing because of a lack of resources or
personnel.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 402 OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE ACT
(Public Law 107-273)
SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.
Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
(1) * * *
(2) by redesignating sections 2002 through 2006 as
[sections 2006 through 2011] sections 2007 through
2011, respectively; and
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2513 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
SEC. 2513. UNJUST CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The amount of damages awarded shall not [exceed the sum
of $5,000] exceed $100,000 for each 12-month period of
incarceration for any plaintiff who was unjustly sentenced to
death and $50,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration for
any other plaintiff.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee on the Judiciary will
be in order. A working quorum is present.
Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 5107, the
``Justice For All Act of 2004'' for purposes of markup and move
its favorable recommendation to the House.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and
open for amendment at any point and the Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes.
[The bill, H.R. 5107, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yesterday I introduced this bill
with the bipartisan cosponsorship of a number of Members of the
Committee. The bill is called ``Justice For All'' because it
will enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are
involved in the criminal justice system. The legislation does
this through two different but complementary mechanisms: a new
set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in
court and supported by fully funded victims' assistance
programs, and a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure
that the true offender is caught and convicted of the crime.
Victims of crime have longed complained that they are the
forgotten voice in the criminal justice system. For example,
Roberta Roper, whose daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally
raped, tortured, and murdered in 1982, testified before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution that, unlike her daughter's
killers, she had no rights to be informed, no rights to attend
the trial, and no rights to be heard before sentencing. Her
experience and that of many others like her have led victims'
rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to
counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the
Constitution.
The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S.
2329, which passed the Senate on April 22 by a vote of 96 to 1.
Like S. 2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for
the victim, including the rights to be reasonably protected
from the accused; the right to timely notice of public court
proceedings involving the crime; the right not to be excluded
from such public court proceedings; the right to be reasonably
heard at certain proceedings and the reasonable right to confer
with the prosecutor; the right to restitution and the right to
proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and the right to be
treated with fairness and respect. Each of these rights is
enforceable by both the prosecutor and the crime victim.
A crime victim or the prosecutor may assert the crime
victim's rights and, if necessary, seek a stay of any
proceeding in which the victim's rights are being denied. The
Government or the crime victim can then seek a writ of mandamus
from the appropriate court of appeals to ensure that the crime
victim's rights are protected.
In addition, the Justice For All Act contains important
provisions to ensure that the criminal justice system will
continue to operate in an efficient manner and that there will
be an appropriate level of finality to the proceedings.
Additionally, the legislation will provide funds for victims'
assistance programs at both the Federal and State level.
The bill is not identical to the Senate bill, but it is
close. Since Senate passage, the Committee has worked with many
interested parties on the issues. I believe this bill, which is
the product of that process, is a very good bill that meets
many of the concerns expressed. We will continue to work on
this bill as it goes to the floor to make the best bill
possible.
The second important element of the Justice For All Act
pertains to the use of DNA technology. These provisions come
from H.R. 3214, which the House passed 357 to 67 on November 5
of last year, but continues to await action in the Senate.
The DNA of the Justice For All Act is identical with the
version of H.R. 3214 passed by the House. It seeks also to
resolve another problem that victims face: frustration and
depression over the length of time it takes to track down and
apprehend their attacker. DNA samples can help to quickly
apprehend offenders and solve crimes if law enforcement
agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing
capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology is increasingly
vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice
system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible
accuracy, and if biological evidence exists, and DNA can be
used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused
or convicted of crimes.
The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis
system needs improvement. The Justice For All Act will provide
the necessary funding to ensure that these critical programs
have access to the necessary equipment and training. It will
also provide funds to eliminate the backlog of DNA samples in
need of testing and provide greater access to potentially
exculpatory evidence to those who may have been wrongfully
convicted of a crime.
As with the victims' portion, we will also continue to work
on this portion of the bill as we go to the floor to make it
the best bill possible.
I would like to thank Congressman Chabot, who has been a
tireless advocate for victims rights, for his support of the
Justice For All Act. I would like to thank Ranking Member
Conyers and Congressman Delahunt and all of the other co-
sponsors for their support, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary
Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 5107, the ``Justice for All Act of
2004,'' with the bipartisan cosponsorship of a number of members of the
Committee. The bill is called ``Justice for All'' because it will
enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are involved in
the criminal justice system. The legislation does this through two
different, but complementary mechanisms: (1) a new set of statutory
victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and
supported by fully-funded victims' assistance programs; and (2) a
comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is
caught and convicted for the crime.
Victims of crime have long complained that they are the forgotten
voice in the criminal justice system. For example, Roberta Roper, whose
daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured, and
murdered in 1982, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
that--unlike her daughter's killers--she had no rights to be informed,
no rights to attend the trial, and no rights to be heard before
sentencing.
Her experience, and that of many others like her, have led victims'
rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to
counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the
Constitution.
The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S. 2329,
which passed the Senate on April 22, 2004 by a vote of 96 to 1. Like S.
2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for the victim,
including the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the
right to timely notice of public court proceedings involving the crime,
the right not to be excluded from such public court proceedings, the
right to be reasonably heard at certain proceedings, the reasonable
right to confer with the prosecutor, the right to restitution, the
right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and the right to be
treated with fairness and respect.
Each of these rights is enforceable by both the prosecutor and the
crime victim. A crime victim or the prosecutor may assert the crime
victims' rights, and, if necessary, seek a stay of any proceeding in
which the victims' rights are being denied.
The government or the crime victim can then seek a writ of mandamus
from the appropriate court of appeals to ensure that the crime victims'
rights are protected.
In addition, the Justice for All Act contains important provisions
to ensure that the criminal justice system will continue to operate in
an efficient manner and that there will be an appropriate level of
finality to proceedings. Additionally, this legislation will provide
funds for victims' assistance programs both at the Federal and state
level.
The bill is not identical to the Senate bill, but it is close.
Since Senate passage, the Committee has worked with many interested
parties on these issues. I believe that this bill, which is the product
of that process, is a very good bill that meets many of the concerns
expressed. We will continue to work on this bill as it goes to the
floor to make it the best bill possible.
The second important element of the Justice for All Act pertains to
the use of DNA technology. These provisions come from H.R. 3214, which
passed the House by the wide margin of 357 to 67 on November 5, 2003,
but continues to await action in the Senate. The DNA portion of the
Justice for All Act is identical to the version of HR 3214 passed by
the House.
It seeks to resolve another problem that victims face: frustration
and depression over the length of time it takes to track down and
apprehend their attacker. DNA samples can help to quickly apprehend
offenders and solve crimes if law enforcement agencies have access to
the most up-to-date testing capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology
is increasingly vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal
justice system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible
accuracy when biological evidence exists, and DNA can be used to clear
suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of
crimes.
The current federal and state DNA collection and analysis system
needs improvement. The Justice for All Act will provide the necessary
funding to ensure that these critical programs have access to the
necessary equipment and training. It will also provide funds to
eliminate the backlog of DNA samples in need of testing and provide
greater access to potentially exculpatory evidence to those who may
have been wrongfully convicted of a crime.
As with the victims portion of the bill, we will also continue to
work on this portion of the bill as we go to the floor to make it the
best bill possible.
I would like to thank Congressman Chabot, who has been a tireless
advocate for victims' rights, for his support of the Justice For All
Act. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Conyers and Congressman
Delahunt and all of the other cosponsors for their support of this
important bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, I would
like to include a letter addressed to the gentleman from
Michigan Mr. Conyers and myself, dated today, supporting this
legislation from the National Center for Victims of Crime.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who would like to give the
Democratic opening statement? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a fairly lengthy
statement and I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts
wants to make a statement, so let me just say that I would like
to say something about the advancing-justice-through-forensic-
DNA-technology portion of the bill and acknowledge that
Virginia has been a leader in DNA technology.
Just yesterday we received a grant to help us expand our
facilities. Debbie Smith, who is a resident of Virginia, was
there at the press conference. And I would like unanimous
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Scott. And yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me
begin by acknowledging the fine work of many Members of this
panel: Anthony Weiner, Adam Schiff, my colleague to my
immediate right here, Mark Green; obviously the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Scott as, well as Mr.
Conyers. And I also want to acknowledge, as the Chairman has,
the commitment and work of Mr. Chabot in terms of the
protection of victims of crime.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not underscore the
work by our distinguished Chairman, and particularly his chief
counsel. Oftentimes those of us who sit in these chairs are
acknowledged for things that others do. Well, in this case,
Phil Kiko has been an extraordinary resource for both Democrats
and Republicans in terms of crafting an omnibus bill, if you
will, that is appropriately entitled Justice for All, because
that is exactly what it does do.
So from both sides of the aisle and the political spectrum,
we come together on this bipartisan legislation, because there
is unanimous agreement that the criminal justice system is
about the search--or a search for the truth. We will never know
whether innocent people have been executed since the death
penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know, however, that there
have been some very close calls. Since 1976, 116 people in 25
States have been released after spending years on death row for
crimes they did not commit. Some of them came within days,
hours, of being put to death. Imagine the potential miscarriage
of justice if these individuals could not have accessed DNA
tests.
Mr. Conyers. Could the gentleman from Massachusetts yield
very briefly to me?
Mr. Delahunt. Certainly.
Mr. Conyers. I thank you and commend you for the work you
have done in the DNA part of these negotiations. I want to
congratulate all that worked with us on the Subcommittee, and
other Members. We have got the most delicate compromise that I
have seen in quite a long time come before the Committee. No
one needs to know that I regret that the Federal death penalty
had to be included, but we all gave up something in this
compromise. It brings together the most important DNA
considerations that have come out of the Congress. I commend
the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his
steadfast leadership across the years on this, and I yield
back. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Delahunt. Yes. And I ask unanimous consent to have an
additional 2 minutes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is always disinclined to
do this in opening statements. Would the gentleman like to
withdraw his unanimous consent?
Mr. Delahunt. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
Let me go further here. DNA was responsible for exonerating
12 of the people freed from death row and another 126 who were
wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. The same test that
exonerated an innocent person led to the apprehension of the
real perpetrator. I think that probably the case that comes to
mind of those----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentleman from Virginia
has expired. Without objection, all Members may put opening
statements in the record at this point. Hearing none, so
ordered. Are there amendments?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary
I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and
other Members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work in
developing this bipartisan compromise. H.R. 5107 takes a giant step
towards improving the integrity of our criminal justice system.
This bill combines two separate initiatives that we've been working
on for a long time. Title 1 addresses the rights of crime victims in
criminal proceedings. These rights are established in both pretrial and
trial proceedings, and include the right to be notified of any
proceeding involving the crime, the right not to be excluded from such
proceeding, and the right to testify at certain proceedings.
Titles 2, 3, and 4 contain the substance of a bill we passed last
year, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. That bill
provides federal inmates with access to DNA testing, thereby enabling
them to establish their innocence after being subjected to a wrongful
conviction. As many of you know, over the past few years, more than 110
innocent Americans have already been exonerated thanks to post-
conviction DNA testing. This provision will ensure that others
wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance at obtaining
justice.
The DNA bill also authorizes grants to be awarded to States with
the express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation
afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated
that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was
wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-
trained or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter
this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a
minimum standard of competency.
Finally, the DNA bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--
but of extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a
wrongful conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that
increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded
for being wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-
capital cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.
Having pointed out the many virtues of both pieces of this
legislation, I must admit this bill remains far from perfect. With
respect to victims' rights, this bill has not resolved the concern that
the writ of mandamus procedure allows victims to be a third party to
the criminal justice system and gives victims the ability to assert the
denial of their rights as an error on appeal. If this bill is enacted
as it is currently drafted, it could change the complexion of criminal
justice system as we know it from a two party adversarial system to a
three party system.
In addition, drafting of the bill could be tightened in several
places. One example is in Section 3771(b), which addresses victims who
are witnesses but are excluded from the proceedings. The legislation
places an enormous burden on courts to figure out a way to allow
victims to attend proceedings. In my view, we should focus more on
whether the victim testifies during the proceeding, and the presumption
should be for exclusion for victim/witnesses.
With respect to the DNA bill, I would prefer the legislation to
include an outright ban on the use of the federal death penalty. I also
think the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some
of the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of
wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false
confessions and police torture.
Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has
been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this
worthwhile initiative.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative
in Congress From the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
DNA Technology has revolutionized criminal justice. Effectiveness
has been increased exponentially by DNA technology, not only for
investigating and prosecuting crime, but also for exonerating innocent
suspects, and many who were wrongly convicted because the technology
was not available or otherwise not applied.
DNA technology has proven so effective and so much in demand that
one of the problems we have been struggling with is providing the
funding and the expertise and structural support necessary to take
advantage of it. Not only have we seen huge backlogs in DNA samples of
already convicted offenders waiting to be processed for addition to
CODIS, the database for convicted offenders, but we have also incurred
huge backlogs in rape kits and other crime scene samples awaiting
processing in order to take dangerous offenders off the streets. This
is something we must not only prioritize, but must adequately fund as a
matter of immediate public safety.
And there can be no greater calling for this committee than the
call to protect innocent people from unjust convictions and even
execution. Our system of criminal law and procedure is premised upon
``the golden thread'' of the criminal justice system, the presumption
of innocence. Its origin is in common law traditions dating back to the
Romans. In Coffin v. U.S. (156 U.S. 432 [1895]), the Court quoted a
Roman official who wrote: ``it is better to let the crime of a guilty
person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.''
In recent years, the advent of DNA evidence has shown us,
unequivocally, that we have been violating this principle with
astounding frequency. We are now up to 108 convicted and sentenced
individuals who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, including 13 who
were on death row. And the numbers are even greater on exclusions at
the outset of criminal investigations. FBI data reveals that about 25%
of suspects who are DNA tested are exonerated.
While DNA is incontrovertible proof that innocent people are
sentenced to death in this country despite our reverence for the
presumption of innocence, DNA evidence is simply a way of revealing the
there are fatal flaws in the system. The real question we have to
answer, Mr. Chairman, is what is wrong with a system where BUT FOR DNA
evidence, innocent people would be put to death.
A 23-year study conducted by Professor James Liebman of Columbia
University, involving over 4,500 capital cases in 34 states revealed
that the courts found serious, reversible error in 68 percent of the
capital cases. Of these, 82% were not sentenced to death upon retrial,
including 7% who were found to be innocent of the capital charge. I
understand that the Innocence Project finds that in a third of the
cases it handles in which DNA evidence is still available, convicted
defendants are found to be outright innocent. When we consider that the
reason they were convicted is due to flaws in our criminal justice
system, there is every reason to believe that the percentage of
erroneous conviction is the same in cases where DNA evidence is not
available.
The notion that the flaws in the system can be addressed through a
governor's clemency powers is clearly an inadequate response to a
serious problem. Our criminal justice principles are designed to ensure
a fair trial for all accused persons. Ultimate questions of life, death
or freedom should not depend upon the politics of the moment or the
popularity of the defendant, or whether the governor is in an election
campaign, or any such vagary. Furthermore, the governor's office is an
inappropriate forum to decide such cases. The governor has no subpoena
power, no right or opportunity to cross examine key witnesses or to
observe witnesses subjected to cross examination by advocates familiar
with the case. Nor does the governor have other investigatory power
necessary to ensure fairness. The forum for testing the reliability of
evidence is the trial, not the political forum of the governor's
office.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that
crime is efficiently and accurately investigated and prosecuted, and
that people are not mistakenly convicted and deprived of their freedom
on account of preventable errors or flaws in our system of justice
administration. We can do a lot to prevent and address such errors and
flaws.
Last Congress, the ``Innocence Protection Act,'' which provides for
funding and standards for DNA testing, safeguards to assure adequate
counsel and other system supports crucial to protecting innocence, was
cosponsored by 250 members. The Debbie Smith Act, which provides for
funding and system supports to address the backlog in DNA sample
processing, also has broad bi-partisan support. So these would be good
efforts to start with. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you and Mr.
Delahunt, and other members, have been working with Chairman Coble to
craft bills that we can all support to accomplish these ends.
I cannot stress the importance of these programs enough. My home
state of Virginia happens to be home of the oldest and most
comprehensive DNA data bank in the country. It now contains the genetic
profiles of more than 191,000 convicted felons. Today, the database is
part of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a system of computer
databases designed by the FBI to store DNA profiles from convicted
offenders as well as crime scene evidence. Through the work of Dr. Paul
Ferrara, Ph.D., Director, Virginia Division of Forensic Science and Dr.
Marcella Fiero, Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Virginia,
hundreds of crimes have been solved not only in Virginia, but other
states. And just yesterday, the importance of funding such programs was
recognized when DOJ announced $201 million in grants to help eliminate
the DNA backlog.
This Victim's Rights bill is a partisan bill in the Senate and in
the House bill to assure that victims are accorded respect and input
into the trial processes of the accused offender we have come up with
the current bi-partisan bill. I applaud your efforts and look forward
to working with you as we move forward on markup of historic
legislation in this Congress. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Massachusetts
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill is the culmination of years of diligent bicameral,
bipartisan efforts toward a common goal. The bill's supporters want to
use all the tools we can to solve crimes. And protect the innocent. In
doing so, crime victims will have access to a justice system that is
fair and truthful. I'd like to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy
for working with us throughout this process.
I would also like to pay tribute to the distinguished Chairman of
this Committee and his Chief Counsel. Without their good faith and
commitment thus far, we would not be where we are today.
From both sides of the aisle and political spectrum, we come
together on this bipartisan legislation. Because we agree the criminal
justice system is about a search for the truth.
We will never know whether innocent people have been executed since
the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know that there have
been some very close calls. Since 1976, 116 people in 25 States have
been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not
commit. Some of them came within days or hours of being put to death.
Imagine the potential miscarriage of justice if these innocent
individuals could not access a DNA test.
I oppose any time limits on DNA testing because there should not be
any time limits on justice. And there should not be any time limits on
innocence.
DNA was responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from
death row, and another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious
crimes. In at least 34 of these cases, the same test that exonerated an
innocent person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator.
With this bill, we must ensure that innocent people do not face
arbitrary time limits on DNA tests. There is no significant
governmental interest in denying DNA testing. DNA is the ultimate tool
in a search for truth. To advance justice, we must allow DNA testing in
every appropriate case.
I am pleased with the new legislation before the Committee today
because it seeks to repair the two sides of injustice when mistakes
happen. As a district attorney for more than 20 years, I remember the
mistakes more than the victories. And I remember the victims. Victims
of the criminal justice system don't all look alike. They just get
caught in the system in different ways.
Think of victims like Debbie Smith. She is a courageous advocate
who has done so much to help her fellow survivors of sexual assault.
Yet it took six years for the DNA evidence to be tested in her case--
evidence that ultimately led to the capture of her rapist. Only then
was she free from what she has called an ``emotional prison.''
Those charged with false accusations and imprisoned based on
wrongful convictions are also victims. Like Kirk Bloodsworth, the first
death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. After 10 years on
death row, Kirk had to convince his lawyer to get the test. DNA
established Kirk's innocence. DNA also led to the identification and
conviction of the true perpetrator within the past year.
We have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of
error--and, where lives are at stake, we must use them. We must also
ensure the rights of crime victims are reasonably and adequately
protected in our federal courts. Why would any Member of the House or
Senate oppose these goals?
Ultimately, this bill is not about the death penalty. It's not
about DNA backlogs. It's about restoring public confidence in the
integrity of the American justice system. It's about justice for all
victims. And it's about innocent people like Debbie Smith and Kirk
Bloodsworth. That is a goal on which we stand united, and I look
forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this
important initiative is signed into law.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In lieu of amendments,
I move to strike the last word and make a very brief statement.
I feel compelled to note some concerns that I have about this
bill. My understanding is that some of these concerns are going
to be worked on before it passes. In order for it to pass the
Senate, certain changes have to be made with regard to
reasonable doubt standards and some other things that need to
be worked on. But I will insert my statement for the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flake follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Arizona
Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to note my concerns about H.R. 5107,
the ``Justice for All Act of 2004.''
As I stated during the mark-up of this bill's predecessor, H.R.
3214, there are many worthwhile parts of this bill, and the goal of
protecting the innocent is indeed important.
However, the concerns that I and some of my colleagues share about
H.R. 3214 have not been addressed in the bill before us today. The
content of H.R. 3214 has been completely transferred into this bill. To
mention just a few of the problematic area of the bill:
H.R. 5107 contains a problematic ``reasonable doubt'' standard for
ordering new trials. Under H.R. 5107, a federal court would have to
order a new trial if DNA-test results ``establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal.'' In many
circumstances this would allow the defendant to walk free, regardless
of his or her innocence. A test result would not have to demonstrate
actual innocence in order to force a new trial; it would only need to
conflict with other evidence of guilt, so as to undermine a jury's
ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
H.R. 5107 contains a provision permitting post-conviction DNA
testing of convicts who had pleaded guilty, and even if they had failed
to seek available DNA testing before trial. This will permit defendants
to reopen cases, re-traumatize victims, and waste resources even if
there is no reason to think that testing will change the outcome of the
case.
H.R. 5107 contains no limitation at all on the duration of its
proposed post-conviction DNA testing remedy, or on how long a convict
may wait before seeking post-conviction DNA testing once this bill
becomes law. Other post-conviction federal remedies are subject to time
limits, and there is no reason to adopt a uniquely open-ended approach
for post-conviction DNA testing. To do invites abuse. A person who is
actually innocent has every reason to seek relief promptly, while a
person who is guilty would probably seek to delay until it's impossible
for the government to retry his case.
The bill also grants $100 million in federal funds to operate state
programs. The National District Attorneys Association has expressed
concern that the bill attempts to re-establish the old ``death penalty
resource centers,'' even though Congress abolished funding for such
centers because they devolved into organizations dedicated solely to
the abolition of the death penalty and were staffed and controlled by
those dedicated to the disruption of the criminal justice system by
whatever means available, ethical or otherwise.
H.R. 5107 also does not give the states adequate discretion in
determining the details of their DNA testing system. Even those states
with existing procedures for post-conviction DNA testing would be
ineligible for federal grants if they employed reasonable provisions in
their DNA testing systems.
The Department of Justice shares many of these concerns, and I
would like to request unanimous consent to insert into the record a
copy of a letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to
Senator Hatch that outlines their concerns with the ``Innocence
Protection'' portion of the bill.
I know that Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff are open to making
changes to this bill, and I also know that, without signification
modifications to this bill, it is not going anywhere on the Senate
side. In the interest of giving the Chairman's negotiations with the
Justice Department and other interested Members a fair chance, I will
not offer any amendments to the bill, as I had originally planned.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Flake. And also ask unanimous consent to insert into
the record a copy of a letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to Senator Hatch.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? The gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the
Chairman for his outstanding hard work on the whole issue of
crime victims' rights and DNA testing. I think we are on the
verge of doing something historic and very special.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the
record a letter from Debbie Smith to Chairman Sensenbrenner in
strong support of this legislation, and strong support in
particular of the DNA provisions that are in it, and commending
the Chairman for his work.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Green. And I would like to yield the balance of my time
to Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I thank my friend for yielding and I will try
to wrap this up so we can move this, as you say, this historic
piece of legislation.
As I indicated, the case that particularly comes to my mind
when an individual is falsely accused is the case of Kurt
Bloodsworth who is the first death row inmate to be exonerated
by DNA testing. After spending 10 years on death row, Kurt had
to convince his lawyer to get the test. The test established
Kurt's innocence. And just recently, subsequently, that DNA--
the access to the DNA technology also finally led to the
identification and conviction of the true perpetrator, sometime
within this past year.
I think that sums it up rather well. Again, this new
legislation before the Committee today to me repairs the two
sides of injustice when mistakes happen. I served as a district
attorney for more than 20 years and I remember the mistakes
more than I do the wins. And I remember the victims. And
victims of the criminal justice system don't all look alike.
They just get caught in the system in different ways.
And with that, I yield back to the gentleman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Wisconsin yield
back?
Mr. Green. I do.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? If there are
no amendments, a reporting quorum is present.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R.
5107 favorably.
All in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the motion
to report favorably is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes
and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental
or minority views.