Order Code RL32469
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Advancing Justice Through DNA
Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214):
A Section-by-Section Analysis
July 13, 2004
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of
2003 (H.R. 3214): A Section-by-Section Analysis
Summary
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains an automated information
processing system, the Combined DNA Index (CODIS), of DNA profiles of certain
convicted criminals and DNA analyses of samples recovered from crime scenes, from
unidentified human remains and from missing persons. The National DNA Indexing
System (NDIS), one of the three indexes that make up the CODIS, enables
participating laboratories to exchange and compare state and federal DNA profiles.
State legislation has increased the number of qualifying offenses for which convicted
offenders must submit DNA samples, such as offender samples, plus case samples
from crime scenes creating a bigger pool of DNA samples needing to be analyzed.
As the pool increases and new samples are collected the states are finding it difficult
to complete the DNA analysis, therefore resulting in a backlog. On November 5,
2003 the House passed H.R. 3214 aimed at modernizing the laws relating to the use
of DNA technology in the criminal justice system. The bill would provide States
with training, funding and guidelines aimed at eliminating the backlog.
Title I of the act would expand the eligibility provisions of the DNA Backlog
Grant Program by adding “units of local government” as potential grantees and
proposes to change the program to a formula grant program. Among other things, it
would expand the types of DNA records that may be included in the CODIS to
include records of persons who have been indicted or who have waived indictment
for a crime, and would also broaden the list of federal and military qualifying
offenses. Furthermore, it would increase the authorized funding levels for the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination program to $151 million annually.
Title II of the act would amend the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to require
that laboratories that provide DNA records for the CODIS be accredited by a
nationally recognized non-profit professional association of forensic scientists within
two years of the enactment of the act, and undergo external audits at least once every
two years to show compliance with specified standards. It provides for enhanced
criminal penalties for knowing misuse or unauthorized disclosure of DNA
information, and authorizes grants to be awarded for DNA training, education,
research and development; sexual assault forensic examination programs; using
DNA technology to identify missing persons; and tribal domestic violence and sexual
assault coalitions. Additionally, it establishes a new National Forensic Science
Commission, expands the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant
Program, and provides funds to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the
administration of its DNA programs.
Title III would establish the rules governing the applications for post-conviction
DNA testing by inmates in the federal system. It would require the preservation of
biological evidence in federal criminal cases while the inmate is in prison and would
establish grants to states for improving the quality of capital litigation. Also, it would
provide funds for post-conviction testing and increase the compensation in federal
cases for the wrongfully convicted. This report analyzes the version of H.R. 3214
that was referred to the Senate and will be updated as necessary.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Title I -- Debbie Smith Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sec. 101. Short Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sec. 102. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program . . . . . . . . . 3
Section 103. Expansion of the Combined DNA Index System . . . . . . 5
Sec. 104. Tolling the Statute of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sec. 105. Legal Assistance for Victims of Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sec. 106. Ensuring Private Laboratory Assistance in
Eliminating DNA Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title II -- DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sec. 201. Short Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sec. 202. Ensuring Public Crime Laboratory Compliance
with Federal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sec. 203. DNA Training and Education for Law
Enforcement, Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers . . . . . . 7
Sec. 204. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sec. 205. DNA Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sec. 206. National Forensic Science Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sec. 207. FBI DNA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sec. 208. DNA Identification of Missing Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sec. 209. Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized
Disclosure or Use of DNA Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sec. 210. Tribal Coalition Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sec. 211. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sec. 212. Report to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Title III -- Innocence Protection Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sec. 301. Short Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Subtitle A - Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sec. 311. Federal Post-Conviction DNA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sec. 313. Incentive Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of
Claims of Actual Innocence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Subtitle B - - Improving the Quality of Representation in State
Capital Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sec. 321. Capital Representation Improvement Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sec. 322. Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sec. 323. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sec. 324 State Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and Administrative
Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sec. 326. Authorization of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Subtitle C - - Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sec. 331. Increased Compensation in Federal Cases for the
Wrongfully Convicted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sec. 332. Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State
Death Penalty Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Advancing Justice Through DNA
Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214): A
Section-by-Section Analysis
Introduction
DNA technology is increasingly vital in ensuring the accuracy and fairness of
the criminal justice system.1 DNA technology can help identify criminals with
incredible accuracy and can clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused
or convicted of crimes.2 The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of
2003 (hereinafter the “Act”), H.R. 32143, was introduced to address several problems
facing state and federal government in DNA collection and analysis. It addresses
three problems: (1) the elimination of backlogs of samples from crime scenes and
convicted offenders that have not been analyzed; (2) the improvement and expansion
of DNA testing capacity of federal, state and local crime laboratories and the
development of new training programs regarding collection and use of DNA
evidence; and (3) the conviction of innocent persons.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains an automated information
processing system, the Combined DNA Index (CODIS)4, of DNA profiles of certain
1 See CRS Report RL30717,
DNA Identification: Application and Issues, by Eric Fischer.
2 H.R. Rep., No. 108-321, pt.1 at 20 (2003).
3 H.R. 3214, sponsored by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., was reported on October 16,
2003 (H.R. Rep., No. 108-321, pt.1 (2003)), and passed the House on November 5, 2003,
by a vote of 357-67. On December 9, 2003 this bill was referred to the Senate. It was read
twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. A similar bill, S. 1700, sponsored by
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, was introduced in the Senate on October 1, 2003 when it was also
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This report analyzes the amended version of
H.R. 3214 as referred to the Senate after being received from the House.
4 The CODIS is an automated DNA information processing and telecommunications system
supporting three indexes: the National DNA Index (NDIS), the State DNA Index (SDIS) and
the Local DNA Index (LDIS). DNA profiles originate at the local level and flow to the state
and national level. Therefore, the NDIS includes DNA profiles from all of the participating
states. In addition, the FBI contributes federal DNA profiles. The FBI provides CODIS
software, installation, training and support free of charge to any state and local government
laboratories performing DNA analysis. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation,
The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System Program- CODIS, brochure available
at [http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/brochures.htm]; Federal Bureau of Investigation,
FBI
Laboratory: Forensic Systems-Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), available at
[http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/systems.htm]; Kansas Bureau of Investigation Forensic
Laboratory Services,
DNA The Newest Implementation of the Technology, available at
[http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/brochures/DNA%20Broshures.pdf] (brochure with
(continued...)
CRS-2
convicted criminals and DNA analyses of samples recovered from crime scenes, from
unidentified human remains and from missing persons.5 Funding for the CODIS was
initially established by the DNA Identification Act of 19946 which established the
DNA Identification Grants program7 to provide grants to state and local governments
for the purpose of developing and improving DNA technology and analysis of DNA
evidence. Grants are awarded by the Attorney General and require States to have in
place a comprehensive plan for the expeditious DNA analysis of samples.8
Additionally, the DNA Identification Act established requirements for quality
assurance of laboratories participating in the program and, in order to protect the
privacy of the individuals, restricted access to the DNA profiles to a select group.9
The National DNA Indexing System (NDIS), one of the three indexes which
comprise the CODIS, links together State and Federal DNA profiles and evidence in
the CODIS system enabling laboratories participating in the CODIS to compare DNA
profiles at a national level.10
State legislation has increased the number of qualifying offenses for which
convicted offenders must submit DNA samples.11 This has created a backlog in the
analysis of such samples as samples must be drawn from individuals currently
incarcerated and then analyzed. In addition, since the pool of convicted offenders is
continuously growing, the States have had a difficult time eliminating the previously
existing backlog of convicted offender samples and analyzing new samples, as well
as analyzing forensic samples.12 As a result, the Senate passed a bill in the 107th
Congress to analyze the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of rape kits and to
improve the investigation and prosecution of sexual offenses using DNA evidence.13
H.R. 3214, aimed at modernizing the laws relating to the use of DNA
technology in the criminal justice system, was introduced on October 2003. The bill,
if enacted, would provide funding, training and guidelines aimed at eliminating the
backlog. It would also provide training for those involved in collecting, processing,
and analyzing DNA samples which would help in the backlog elimination. It would
4 (...continued)
a very helpful explanation of the CODIS)).
5 42 U.S.C. 14132.
6 42 U.S.C. § 14131 et seq.
7 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 and 3796kk.
8 42 U.S.C. § 14135.
9 42 U.S.C. §§ 14131 and 14133.
10
FBI Laboratory: Forensic Systems-Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), supra note
4.
11 Id. at 13.
12 Id.
13 S. 2513, the “DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002,” was passed by the Senate by
unanimous consent on September 12, 2002. S.Rep. 107-334 (2002), was filed by the
Committee on the Judiciary on November 4, 2002.
CRS-3
also provide procedures for inmates to request post-conviction DNA analysis and
includes provisions to prevent the abuse of those procedures.
This report is a section-by-section analysis of H.R. 3214. H.R. 3214 passed the
House on November 5, 2003, by a vote of 357-67. On December 9, 2003 this bill
was referred to the Senate, read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill passed overwhelmingly in the House but has been criticized by some and is
currently stalled in the Senate.14 It is supported by the Administration.15
Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents. This section of the bill
contains the short title, “Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003”
and the table of contents.
Title I -- Debbie Smith Act of 2003
Sec. 101. Short Title. This section of the bill contains the short title to Title
I of the bill, the “Debbie Smith Act of 2003.”
Sec. 102. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. This
section proposes to amend section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (hereinafter “Backlog Elimination Act”).16 Under this law, the Attorney
14 See American Civil Liberties Union,
ACLU Letter to the House Judiciary Committee
Expressing Concerns about H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act
o f 2 0 0 3 ( O c t o b e r 8 , 2 0 0 3 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14002&c=129] (expressing concerns that
Titles I and II of the act would expand the CODIS and further undermine principles of
privacy and due process); Congressional Quarterly,
DNA Testing Bill Has Many Friends,
Some Foes (November 11, 2003),available at
www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/legislation/IPA_0321?OpenDocument (raising questions
regarding the legal standards proposed by the bill for allowing new trials after post-
conviction DNA testing); CQ Today,
Chambers at Loggerheads on DNA, Death Penalty
Bills (May 6, 2004), available at [http://www.cq.com/] (summarizing Senate criticisms of
the bill to include making federal grants contingent upon the states meeting certain
conditions such as building effective systems to ensure defendants access to competent
representation in capital cases).
15 Office of the President,
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology (Mar. 2003),
available on Mar. 29, 2004 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnapolicybook_cov];
Prepared
Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft: DNA Initiative (Mar. 11, 2003), available on
Mar. 29, 2004 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2003/031102dnaremarks];
Fact Sheet:
The President’s Initiative to Advance Justice Through DNA Technology, available on Apr.
29, 2004 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnaoverviewinitiative21]; see also, Statement of
National Institute of Justice Director Sarah V. Hart, in
Advancing Justice Through Forensic
DNA Technology: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (2003), available on
Apr. 29, 2004 at [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/crime].
16 42 U.S.C. § 14135.
CRS-4
General is authorized to make grants (1) to eligible states17 to increase the capacity
of laboratories to do DNA analyses, and (2) to conduct DNA analyses of samples
from individuals convicted of qualifying crimes and from crime scenes. The results
must be included in the CODIS.
This section would name the grant program in the Backlog Elimination Act ‘The
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program,’18 and expand eligibility for such grants
by adding “units of local government” as potential grantees. Also, this section would
clarify the permissible uses for the grants: (1) to ensure that DNA testing and
analyses of samples from certain crime scenes are carried out in a timely manner
including samples from (a) rape kits and other sexual assault evidence, and
(b) other serious violent crimes;19 and (2) to collect DNA samples from convicted
offenders.20
Additionally, current law does not specify how the grants are to be divided
among the states. This section would implement a formula as the method of
allocating grants among the states and units of local government. The formula, to be
determined by the Attorney General, must distribute funds among eligible states and
units of local government in a way that would maximize the effective utilization of
DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety, and address areas in
which significant backlog exists. A minimum amount of 0.50% of the total amount
appropriated in a fiscal year for grants under this section would be allocated to each
state, with the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands each being allocated 0.125%. At least 50% of the grant
amounts for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 would be required to be allocated for the
purpose of analyzing DNA samples from crime scenes, including samples from rape
kits, and samples taken from individuals convicted of qualifying crimes and from
crime scenes for inclusion in the CODIS. This amount would be reduced to at least
45% for FY2007 and at least 40% for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Under current law21 the Attorney General is required to submit to Congress,
within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year for which such grants are made, a report
containing two pieces of information: the amount of grants made to each state for
said fiscal year, and a summary of the information provided by the states receiving
grants. This section proposes to add a third requirement for the report to include a
description of the priorities and plans for awarding grants among eligible states and
17 An “eligible” State is one that implements a comprehensive program for expeditious DNA
analysis within 120 days of the application for the grant, certifies that each DNA analysis
will meet privacy requirements and which offenses will qualify for DNA analysis, and
provides the planned allocation of the grant money.
18 The renaming of the program is done in honor of Debbie Smith, a rape victim and leader
in promoting the use of the DNA technology to solve crimes. H. Rep. No. 108-321, pt.1 at
26 (2003).
19 Proposed 42 U.S.C. § 14135(a)(5).
20 Proposed 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135(a)(4) and 14135(a)(7).
21 42 U.S.C. § 14135(g).
CRS-5
units of local government, and how such plans will ensure the effective use of the
DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.
Finally, this section would raise the amounts authorized to be distributed by the
Attorney General for grants under 42 U.S.C. § 14135 from $25 million for the years
2003 and 2004, to $151 million for each fiscal year thereafter until 2009. Up to 1%
of these grant amounts would be reserved for distribution to States or units of local
government to defray the costs incurred by laboratories in preparing for accreditation
or re-accreditation and to defray the costs of external audits to ensure compliance
with the federal quality assurance standard for laboratories which participate in the
National DNA Index System (NDIS).
Section 103. Expansion of the Combined DNA Index System.
Currently, in addition to forensic samples, the CODIS includes the DNA records
of persons convicted of crimes.22 This section would expand the CODIS to include
the DNA records of persons who have been indicted or who have waived indictment
for a crime, and other persons whose DNA samples are collected under applicable
legal authority. It would, however, exclude DNA profiles of arrestees who have not
been indicted and DNA samples voluntarily submitted for elimination purposes.23
Furthermore, this section would expand the list of qualifying offenses that would
require inclusion in the CODIS.24 The CODIS would include samples from
individuals convicted of any federal felony, any offense relating to sexual abuse, any
crime of violence, or the attempt or conspiracy to commit the same; and qualifying
military offenses.25
To protect the rights of the innocent from the expansion of the CODIS to
include samples from persons who have been indicted, this section would expand
the reasons for expungement of records. Under the proposed amendment, a state
would have the obligation to expunge from the CODIS the DNA analysis of samples
from persons where all charges of qualifying offenses have been dismissed or
resulted in an acquittal.
Finally, this section proposes to add a new subsection to 42 U.S.C. §14132
addressing authority for keyboard searches of the National DNA Index System
(NDIS). The amendment would allow the federal government or a state to search the
22 42 U.S.C. § 14132(a)(1).
23 Samples submitted for “elimination purposes” are samples from individuals who are
potential suspects of a crime and who voluntarily submit DNA samples for analysis for the
purpose of being removed from consideration as potential suspects.
24 42 U.S.C. § 14135a currently lists only a select number of federal offenses qualified for
inclusion in the DNA index. These include murder, offenses related to sexual abuse,
offenses relating to peonage and slavery, kidnaping, robbery or burglary, incest and arson,
crimes of violence, terrorist offenses, attempt and conspiracy.
25 Qualifying military offenses would include any offense under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for which a sentence of confinement for more than a year may be
imposed; and any other offense under the UCMJ that is comparable to a qualifying federal
offense.
CRS-6
NDIS for a match to any DNA sample that was lawfully obtained by the state.26
“Keyboard search” would be defined as a search under which information from a
DNA sample is compared with information in the NDIS without resulting in the
obtained information being included in the index.
Sec. 104. Tolling the Statute of Limitations.
This section would add a new section, § 3297, to chapter 213 of title 18 of the
U.S.C. addressing the tolling (expiration) of the statute of limitations when DNA
analysis is used to identify an alleged offender. This proposed new section would
provide that in a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified person in the
commission of a felony, the starting date for purpose of the expiration of the statute
of limitations would be the date when the person was implicated in the commission
of the crime by the DNA testing and not the date of the commission of the crime.
Therefore, any delays associated with backlogs in DNA analysis of crime samples
would be excluded from the statute of limitations. This section would apply to the
prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment
of this section. However, it would not apply to cases where the statute of limitations
had expired at the time the DNA testing was done.27
Sec. 105. Legal Assistance for Victims of Violence.
Current law authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to provide legal
assistance or advocacy services to victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual
assault.28 This section would expand the law to include legal assistance to victims
of dating violence. It would define “dating violence” as “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 the relationship would be determined based on (a)
the length of the relationship, (b) the type of relationship, and (c) the frequency of
interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
Sec. 106. Ensuring Private Laboratory Assistance in Eliminating
DNA Backlog.
Existing law allows for grants to analyze samples from crime scenes or from
individuals convicted of a qualifying offense to be made in the form of vouchers
which may be redeemed by private laboratories that meet quality standards and that
have been approved by the Attorney General.29 This section would restate the statute
clarifying that grants may be made in the form of a voucher and expanding it to
include contracts as a permissible form of grants.
26 Proposed 42 U.S.C. 14132(e).
27 In cases where the identity of the suspect is not known, but the government has been able
to get a DNA profile, current law, 18 U.S.C. § 3282(b), provides that the statute of
limitations can be tolled by indicting the accused and describing them as someone whose
name is unknown but who has a particular DNA profile.
28 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-6.
29 42 U.S.C. § 14134(d)(3).
CRS-7
Title II -- DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003
Sec. 201. Short Title.
This section provides that this title may be cited as the “DNA Sexual Assault
Justice Act of 2003.”
Sec. 202. Ensuring Public Crime Laboratory Compliance with
Federal Standards.
Current law requires that laboratories and analysts conducting DNA analyses
undergo semiannual external proficiency testing.30 This section would require state
and local government public crime laboratories that provide DNA analysis and
identification records for the CODIS to be accredited within two years after the
enactment of the act. The accreditation would be done by a nationally recognized
non-profit professional association involved in forensic science. Furthermore,
laboratories would be required to undergo external audits at least once every two
years to demonstrate compliance with the standards established by the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 203. DNA Training and Education for Law Enforcement,
Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers.
This section would create a new grant program for the purpose of providing to
eligible entities training, technical assistance, education, and information relating to
the identification, collection, preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and
evidence. Eligible entities would include law enforcement personnel, including
police officers and other first responders, evidence technicians, investigators and
others who collect or examine evidence of crime; court officers, including state and
local prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges; forensic science professionals; and
corrections personnel, including jail, prison personnel, probation and parole officers.
The grant program would authorize $12.5 million for each fiscal year from 2005
through 2009.
Sec. 204. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants.
This section would create a new grant program requiring the Attorney General
to award grants for the purpose of providing training, technical assistance, education,
equipment, and information relating to the identification, collection, preservation,
analysis, and use of DNA samples and DNA evidence by medical personnel,
including doctors, medical examiners, coroners, nurses, victim service providers, and
other professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault, and sexual assault
examination programs. The grant program would authorize $30 million for each
fiscal year from 2005 through 2009. Grants could be given to states, units of local
government, and sexual assault examination programs.
30 42 U.S.C. § 14132(b)(2).
CRS-8
Sec. 205. DNA Research and Development.
This section would create new grants for research and development to improve
forensic DNA technology, including increasing the identification accuracy and
efficiency of DNA analysis, decreasing time and expense, and increasing portability.
This section would also authorize grants for funding projects to demonstrate and
evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology in conjunction with other forensic tools.
The demonstration projects would include scientific evaluation of the public safety
benefits, improvements to the law enforcement operations, and cost-effectiveness of
increased collection and use of DNA evidence. Programs would be authorized for
fiscal years 2005 through 2009 at $15 million per year.
Sec. 206. National Forensic Science Commission.
This section would authorize the Attorney General to establish a new National
Forensic Science Commission, appoint its members, designate the Chair and any
necessary staff to assist in its functions, and establish procedures and guidelines for
its operation. The commission would be composed of persons experienced in
criminal justice issues, including persons from the forensic science and criminal
justice communities. It would be responsible for: (1) assessing the resource needs
of the forensic science community; (2) making recommendations to the Attorney
General for maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve
crimes and protect the public; (3) identifying potential scientific advances that may
assist law enforcement in using forensic technologies and techniques to protect the
public; (4) making recommendations to the Attorney General for increasing the
number of qualified forensic scientists available to work in public crime laboratories;
(5) disseminating the best practices concerning the collection and analyses of forensic
evidence; (6) examining issues pertaining to forensic science as requested by the
Attorney General; (7) examining federal, state and local privacy protection statutes,
regulations, and practices relating to DNA analyses and DNA samples; (8) making
specific recommendations to the Attorney General to enhance these protections; and
(9) providing a forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas and information
in furtherance of the objectives of the commission. This section would also authorize
$500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for the establishment of the
commission and execution of its duties.
Sec. 207. FBI DNA Programs.
This section would authorize $42.1 million for each fiscal years 2005 through
2009 for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out the DNA programs and
activities including nuclear DNA analysis; mitochondrial DNA analysis; regional
mitochondrial DNA laboratories; the Combined DNA Index; the Federal Convicted
Offender DNA Program; and DNA research and development.
Sec. 208. DNA Identification of Missing Persons.
This section would create new grants for states and units of local government
to promote the use of forensic technology to identify missing persons and
unidentified human remains. The section would authorize the appropriation of $2
million for each fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for this purpose.
CRS-9
Sec. 209. Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized
Disclosure or Use of DNA Information.
Under current law anyone who wrongfully discloses, obtains or uses DNA
sample information is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.31 This section
would restate the provision clarifying that each instance of disclosing, obtaining, or
using would constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 210. Tribal Coalition Grants.
Under current law the Attorney General is required to award grants to state
domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for coordinating state victim service
activities.32 This section would create new grants to nonprofit, non-governmental
tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for the purpose of (1)
increasing awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault against Indian women;
(2) enhancing the response to violence against Indian women at the tribal, federal and
state levels; and (3) 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. It would make available 1/54
of the grants for domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for these purposes.
Sec. 211. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grant Program.
This section proposes to amend two sections of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3797m and 3797k, which address portions of
the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program. Section 3797m
of title 42 allows states and units of local government to use grant money to carry out
all or a substantial part of a program intended to improve the timeliness and quality
of forensic science or medical examiner services in the State. This section would
expand the grant program to permit funds to be used to eliminate the backlog in
analysis of forensic science evidence, and to train, assist, and employ forensic
laboratory personnel to eliminate such backlog. Additionally, it would provide that
a backlog exists when the evidence has been stored in a laboratory, medical
examiner’s office, coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical
facility and has not been subjected to all appropriate forensic testing due to lack of
resources or personnel.
42 U.S.C. § 3797k requires states requesting a grant under this program to
submit to the Attorney General a certification that the state or unit of local
government has developed a plan for forensic science laboratories; a specific
description of the manner in which the grant money will be used to carry out the plan;
a certification that any forensic science laboratory, medical examiner’s office, or
coroner’s office receiving grant money uses generally accepted laboratory practices
and procedures; and a description of any new facility to be built in connection with
plans to carry out this program. This section would add a new requirement for
31 42 U.S.C. 14135e(c).
32 42 U.S.C. 3796gg.
CRS-10
applying for grants under this program. States and units of local government would
be required to submit to the Attorney General a certification that a government entity
exists and that an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external
investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct that substantially
affect the integrity of the forensic results.
This section would also extend and increase the authorization of appropriations
to $20 million a year from 2007 through FY2009. Current authorizations are
$128,067,000 for 2004, $56,733,000 for 2005, and $42,067,000 for 2006.
Sec. 212. Report to Congress.
This section would add a new requirement that the Attorney General submit a
report to Congress relating to implementation of the act within two years of its
enactment. The report would contain (1) the progress made by federal, state, and
local entities in collecting and entering DNA samples for inclusion in the CODIS;
analyzing samples from crime scenes and entering such DNA analyses in CODIS;
and increasing the capacity of forensic laboratories to conduct DNA analyses; (2) the
priorities and plan for awarding grants; (3) the distribution of grants under this act
and whether such funds have served the purposes of the programs; (4) grants awarded
and the use of such grants for training and education programs; (5) grants awarded
and the use of such grants to conduct DNA research and development programs to
improve DNA technology; (6) the steps taken to establish the National Science
Commission; (7) the use of funds by the FBI; (8) grants awarded and use of such
grants to promote the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons
and unidentified human remains; (9) grants awarded and the use of such grants to
eliminate forensic science backlogs; (10) state compliance with the requirements of
section 313 of the DNA Act (requirements for incentive grants to ensure
consideration of claims of innocence); and (11) any other matters considered
relevant by the Attorney General.
Title III -- Innocence Protection Act of 2003
Sec. 301. Short Title.
This section states that this title may be cited as the ‘Innocence Protection Act
of 2003.’
Subtitle A - Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing
Sec. 311. Federal Post-Conviction DNA Testing.
This section proposes to add a new chapter 228A to title 18 that would establish
rules and procedures governing applications for DNA testing of inmates in the
federal system. It would provide that a court that has sentenced an individual to
prison or death shall order DNA testing of specific evidence, upon request of the
individual, if the individual asserts under penalty of perjury that (1) he is actually
CRS-11
innocent of a qualifying offense33; (2) the evidence to be tested was secured in
relation to the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying offense; (3) the evidence
to be tested was not previously subject to DNA testing, and the individual did not
voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to have DNA testing done on the evidence,
or the evidence was previously subjected to DNA testing but the individual is
requesting DNA testing using new technology; (4) the evidence is in the possession
of the government and has been subject to a chain of custody; (5) the proposed DNA
testing is reasonable in scope; (6) the individual identifies a theory of defense that is
not inconsistent with an affirmative defense presented at trial and would establish
actual innocence; (7) if the individual was convicted following a trial, the identity of
the perpetrator was at issue; (8) the proposed DNA testing would produce new
material evidence that supports the assertion of innocence and raises a reasonable
probability that the individual did not commit the crime; (9) the individual certifies
that he will provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and (10) the
individual’s motion is filed for the purpose of demonstrating the individual’s actual
innocence and not to delay execution of the sentence.
The new chapter also provides for the appointment of counsel for an indigent
applicant, notification to the government of the filing of the motion, and an order to
the government to preserve the evidence relating to the motion. The DNA testing
would be required to be done by the FBI. The cost of the testing would be paid by
the applicant or, if the applicant is indigent, by the government. This section would
also provide that in capital cases any DNA testing shall be completed no later than
60 days after the date the government responds to the motion; and no later than 120
after the DNA testing is ordered. The results would be simultaneously disclosed to
the court, the applicant, and the government. This section also provides for entry of
the results of the DNA testing into the NDIS even if the results are inconclusive or
show that the applicant was the source of the DNA evidence; or when the DNA
sample from the applicant results in a match with another offense. If the DNA test
results exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA evidence and there is no
match between the applicant’s DNA sample and another offense, the Attorney
General must destroy the applicant’s DNA sample and ensure that such information
is not retained in the NDIS unless there is an independent legal authority to do so.
Penalties, including repayment of costs incurred as a result of the petition, denial
of good conduct credit, or denial of parole, are established in the event that testing
inculpates the applicant. Where test results are exculpatory, the court would grant the
applicant’s motion for a new trial or resentencing if the test results and other
evidence establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a new trial would result
in an acquittal of the offense at issue.
The destruction of biological evidence in a federal criminal case would be
prohibited while a defendant remains incarcerated, absent one of four criteria being
met. These include denial by a court of a motion or request for DNA testing under
18 U.S.C. § 3600, with no appeal pending; a knowing and voluntary waiver by the
defendant; prior notification to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed,
33 “Qualifying offenses” are those offenses listed under 42 U.S.C. § 14135a and section 103
of this act.
CRS-12
where the defendant, within 180 days of such notice, does not file a motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3600 for DNA testing; or circumstances requiring return of the evidence to
its owner or demonstrating that retention of the evidence is impracticable because of
its size, bulk or physical characteristics, where the government takes reasonable
measures to remove and preserve sufficient portions of the material evidence for
future DNA testing. Nothing in this section would supercede any statute, regulation,
court order, or other provision of law requiring that evidence, including biological
evidence, be preserved. Intentional violations of this preservation provision to
prevent evidence from being tested or used in court would be punishable by a fine or
imprisonment for up to five years, or both.
Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant
Program.
This section would authorize $5 million a year in grants for each of fiscal years
2005 through 2009 to help states to defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.
‘State’, for purposes of this section, would be defined as a state of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marina Islands.
Sec. 313. Incentive Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of
Claims of Actual Innocence.
This section would provide that no entity is eligible to receive a grant under §§
203, 205, 207, or 312 unless the state has a statute which provides for post-conviction
DNA testing and a statute or a state or local rule which provides for the preservation
of biological evidence secured in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a state
offense.
Subtitle B - - Improving the Quality of Representation in State
Capital Cases.
This subtitle establishes grants to improve the quality of capital litigation.
Grants would be provided for the improvement of both the prosecution and the
representation of defendants. It provides the process of applying for such grants and
requires states receiving such grants to submit annual reports to the Attorney General
on the use of the grant money.
Sec. 321. Capital Representation Improvement Grants.
This section would authorize a grant program, to be administered by the
Attorney General, to improve the quality of legal representation provided to indigent
defendants in state capital cases. ‘Legal representation’ would mean legal counsel
and investigative, expert, and other services necessary for competent representation.
Grants would be required to be used to establish, implement, or improve an effective
system for providing competent legal representation to indigents charged with an
offense subject to capital punishment; indigents who have been sentenced to death
and who seek appellate or collateral relief in state court; and indigents who have been
CRS-13
sentenced to death and who seek review in the Supreme Court. Funds could not be
used to fund representation in specific capital cases.
An ‘effective system’ would be defined as one in which a public defender
program or other entity establishes qualifications for attorneys who may be appointed
to represent indigents in capital cases; establishes qualifications for attorneys who
may be appointed to represent indigents in capital cases; establishes and maintains
a roster of qualified attorneys and assigns attorneys from the roster (or provides the
trial judge with a choice of attorneys from the roster); trains and monitors the
performance of such attorneys; and ensures funding for the full cost of competent
legal representation by the defense team and any outside experts.
Sec. 322. Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.
This section would authorize grants to improve the ability of prosecutors to
effectively represent the public in state capital cases. Grants would need to be used
to design and implement 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 provide
support and assistance to the families of murder victims.
Sec. 323. Applications.
This section would establish the process through which states would apply for
grants under this subtitle. It provides that a state desiring a grant under this subtitle
would need to submit an application to the Attorney General containing: (1) a
certification by an officer of the state that the said state authorizes capital punishment
under its laws; (2) a description of the communities to be served by the grant; (3) a
long-term statewide strategy and detailed implementation plan; and, (4) assurances
that federal funds received under this subtitle would be used to supplement and not
supplant non-federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded
under this subtitle, and allocated in accordance with section 326(b) of this act.
Sec. 324 State Reports.
This section would require that each state receiving funds under this subtitle
submit an annual report to the Attorney General that identifies the activities carried
out with such funds and, explains how each activity complies with the terms and
conditions of the grant. The reports would be made available to the public.
A report with respect to grants for the improvement of capital representation
would need to include an accounting of all amounts expended; an explanation of the
means by which the state implements the assignment of qualified attorneys; and how
the state requires the establishment of a qualified attorney roster, assigns attorneys
from the roster, conduct training programs for capital defense attorneys, monitors the
performance and attendance of the appointed attorneys, and ensures the funding for
the full cost of competent legal representation by the defense team including experts
selected by counsel.
CRS-14
A report with respect to grants for capital prosecution improvement would need
to include an accounting of all expenses; and a description of the means by which the
state plans to meet the requirements set out in section 322 of this act.
Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and Administrative
Remedies.
This section would direct the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to
submit periodic reports to the Attorney General evaluating the compliance of each
state receiving funds under this subtitle with the terms and conditions of the grant.
If the Inspector General finds that the state is not in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the grant, he must specify any deficiencies and make recommendations
for corrective action. In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector General would
have to give priority to States at the highest risk of noncompliance.
If, after receiving a report from the Inspector General, the Attorney General
finds that a state is not in compliance, the Attorney General would have to consult
with appropriate state authorities to enter into a plan for corrective action and report
to Congress on the results. If a state fails to comply with the corrective action, the
Attorney General would discontinue all further funding under sections 321 and 322
and require the state to return the funds that had been granted for that fiscal year.
Nonetheless, a state could reapply for a grant in another fiscal year.
No less than 2.5% of the funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle for each
fiscal years 2005 through 2009 would be made available to the Inspector General for
these inspections.
Sec. 326. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section would authorize $100 million a year for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this subtitle. Each state that would receive a grant under
this subtitle would have to allocate the funds equally between the uses in section 321
and 322, except for the 2.5% allocated for the inspections by the Inspector General.
Subtitle C - - Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted
Sec. 331. Increased Compensation in Federal Cases for the
Wrongfully Convicted.
This section proposes to amend 28 U.S.C. § 2513(e) by increasing the maximum
amount of damages that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may award against the
United States in cases of unjust imprisonment from a flat $5,000 to $50,000 per year
of incarceration in non-capital cases, and $100,000 per year of incarceration in capital
cases.
CRS-15
Sec. 332. Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State
Death Penalty Cases.
This section would express the sense of Congress that states should provide
reasonable compensation to any person found to have been unjustly convicted of an
offense against the State and sentenced to death.
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.