Highlights of The Innocence Protection Act of 2003

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 will be included in a larger bill called the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the nation’s crime labs and to improve the capacity of federal, state and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.  The package will be unveiled at noon on Wednesday in a news conference on Capitol Hill.

OVERVIEW:

• The Innocence Protection Act has gained enormous momentum in Congress, with 32 senators and 250 representatives—well over half the House—signed on in support since its first introduction in the Senate on Feb. 11, 2000.  Hearings were held in the Senate and the House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7 last year.  This effort has finally succeeded in achieving consensus on several reforms drawn directly from the IPA reform effort. 

 

• The revised Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year.  These modifications follow many months of painstaking, bipartisan negotiation and deliberation.

 

• These are first steps toward death penalty reform.  Many inside and outside of Congress who know the flaws in the system will continue to push for further reforms.

 

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two significant reforms:

 

• First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and it authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing.

 

• Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.  This new $25 million ($5 million a year for five years) grant program is intended to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.  This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing.

 

• [The overall package (outside the IPA Title) also includes a new Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.  Among other things, this legislation authorizes $755 million in grants over five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the nation’s crime labs, and expand and improve the capacity of federal, state and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.] 

 

• 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 within grasp today is to help states establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.

 

• Capital Representation Improvement Grants.  The new version of 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.  But if a state chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. 

 

• Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in federal cases of wrongful conviction. 

TITLE III─INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

 

Sec. 301.  Short Title.  This title may be cited as the “Innocence Protection Act of 2003.”

 

Subtitle 1─Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

 

Sec. 311.  Federal Post-Conviction DNA Testing.  Establishes rules and procedures governing applications for DNA testing by inmates in the federal system.  A court shall order DNA testing if the applicant asserts under penalty of perjury that he or she is actually innocent of a qualifying offense, and the proposed DNA testing would produce new material evidence that supports such assertion and raises a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit the offense.  Limitations on access to testing are imposed where the applicant seeks to interfere with the administration of justice rather than to support a valid claim.  Penalties are established in the event that testing inculpates the applicant.  Where test results are exculpatory, the court shall 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.

 

This section also prohibits the destruction of biological evidence in a federal criminal case while a defendant remains incarcerated, absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant or prior notification to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed.  Nothing in this section supercedes 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 are punishable by a term of imprisonment.

 

Sec. 312.  Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.  Authorizes $5 million a year in grants through 2009 to help states to defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.  This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing.

 

Sec. 313.  Incentive Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of Claims of Actual Innocence.  Reserves the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out sections 203, 205, 207, and 312 of this Act for states that have adopted adequate procedures for providing post-conviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence for this purpose.

 

Subtitle 2─Improving The Quality of Representation

In State Capital Cases

 

Sec. 321.  Capital Representation Improvement Grants.  Authorizes 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.  Grants shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an effective system for providing competent legal representation in capital cases, but may not be used to fund representation in specific cases.  An effective system is 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 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.  As part of the same program established in section 321, authorizes grants to improve the representation of the public in state capital cases.  Grants shall 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 assist the families of murder victims.

 

Sec. 323.  Applications.  Establishes requirements for states applying for grants under this subtitle, including a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan that reflects consultation with the judiciary, the organized bar, and state and local prosecutor and defender organizations, and establishes as a priority improvement in the quality of trial-level representation of indigents charged with capital crimes and trial-level prosecution of capital crimes in order to enhance the reliability of capital trial verdicts.  Funds received under this subtitle shall be allocated equally between the programs established in sections 321 and 322.

 

Sec. 324.  State Reports.  Requires states receiving funds under this subtitle to submit an annual report to the Attorney General identifying the activities carried out with the funds and explaining how each activity complies with the terms and conditions of the grant.

 

Sec. 325.  Evaluations by Inspector General and Administrative Remedies.  Directs 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.  In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector General shall 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 shall take a series of steps to bring the state into compliance and report to Congress on the results.

 

Sec. 326.  Authorization of Appropriations.  Authorizes $100 million a year for five years to carry out this subtitle.

 

Subtitle 3─Compensation Of the Wrongfully Convicted

 

Sec. 331.  Increased Compensation in Federal Cases.  Increases 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 in non-capital cases, and $100,000 per year in capital cases.

 

Sec. 332.  Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State Death Penalty Cases.  This section expresses 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.