Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Hearing On
Advancing Justice Through Forensic DNA Technology
House Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism, And Homeland Security
July 17, 2003

It has been a year since the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the Innocence Protection Act by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. I am delighted that this subcommittee is carrying on where we left off.

I want to thank and commend Chairman Coble and Chairman Sensenbrenner, as well as the House leaders on this legislation, Bill Delahunt and Ray LaHood, for convening this hearing. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system.

The Innocence Protection Act is a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms it proposes are designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results.

The Act would do two things to realize these vital objectives. First, it would ensure that post-conviction DNA testing is available in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and that DNA evidence is adequately preserved throughout the country. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions – inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help states establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.

I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of revisions to the bill. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish.

If a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements, which are designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it.

If, on the other hand, a State chooses not to participate in this program, then the money will be awarded to the non-governmental organizations in that State, to be used for capital defense work. One way or another, the bill will improve the level of representation in State capital cases.

Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a "carrot and stick" approach to the counsel issue. The "carrot" was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The "stick" – which is no longer in the bill – was that States that failed to meet these standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. While these enforcement mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, I believe that the formulation approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee – without the "stick" – will still be effective, provided that the grant program is fully funded. Given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective.

Once again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing and for their good work and good will on this timely and important reform initiative.

# # # # #