PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000 114 STAT. 2787

Public Law 106–561

106th Congress

An Act

To improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services for

criminal justice purposes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paul Coverdell National Forensic

Sciences Improvement Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. IMPROVING THE QUALITY, TIMELINESS, AND CREDIBILITY OF

FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSES.

(a) DESCRIPTION OF DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 375(b)) is

amended—

(1) in paragraph (25), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;

(2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at the end

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(27) improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility of

forensic science services for criminal justice purposes.’’.

(b) STATE APPLICATIONS.—Section 503(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753(a))

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(13) If any part of the amount received from a grant under

this part is to be used to improve the quality, timeliness, and

credibility of forensic science services for criminal justice purposes,

a certification that, as of the date of enactment of this paragraph,

the State, or unit of local government within the State, has an

established—

‘‘(A) forensic science laboratory or forensic science laboratory system, that—

‘‘(i) employs 1 or more full-time scientists—

‘‘(I) whose principal duties are the examination

of physical evidence for law enforcement agencies in

criminal matters; and

‘‘(II) who provide testimony with respect to such

physical evidence to the criminal justice system;

‘‘(ii) employs generally accepted practices and procedures, as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and

42 USC 3751.

42 USC 3711

note.

Paul Coverdell

National

Forensic Sciences

Improvement Act

of 2000.

Dec. 21, 2000

[S. 3045]

114 STAT. 2788 PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000

‘‘(iii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation

Board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the National Association of Medical Examiners,

or will use a portion of the grant amount to prepare and

apply for such accreditation by not later than 2 years

after the date on which a grant is initially awarded under

this paragraph; or

‘‘(B) medical examiner’s office (as defined by the National

Association of Medical Examiners) that—

‘‘(i) employs generally accepted practices and procedures, as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and

‘‘(ii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation

Board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the National Association of Medical Examiners,

or will use a portion of the grant amount to prepare and

apply for such accreditation by not later than 2 years

after the date on which a grant is initially awarded under

this paragraph.’’.

(c) PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT

GRANTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘PART BB—PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC

SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

‘‘SEC. 2801. GRANT AUTHORIZATION.

‘‘The Attorney General shall award grants to States in accordance with this part.

‘‘SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.

‘‘To request a grant under this part, a State shall submit

to the Attorney General—

‘‘(1) a certification that the State has developed a consolidated State plan for forensic science laboratories operated by

the State or by other units of local government within the

State under a program described in section 2804(a), and a

specific description of the manner in which the grant will

be used to carry out that plan;

‘‘(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;

and

‘‘(3) a specific description of any new facility to be constructed as part of the program 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).

‘‘SEC. 2803. ALLOCATION.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—

42 USC 3797l.

42 USC 3797k.

42 USC 3797j.

Deadline.

Deadline.

PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000 114 STAT. 2789

‘‘(1) POPULATION ALLOCATION.—Seventy-five percent of the

amount made available to carry out this part in each fiscal

year shall be allocated to each State that meets the requirements of section 2802 so that each State shall receive an

amount that bears the same ratio to the 75 percent of the

total amount made available to carry out this part for that

fiscal year as the population of the State bears to the population

of all States.

‘‘(2) DISCRETIONARY ALLOCATION.—Twenty-five percent of

the amount made available to carry out this part in each

fiscal year shall be allocated pursuant to the Attorney General’s

discretion to States with above average rates of part 1 violent

crimes based on the average annual number of part 1 violent

crimes reported by such State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for which such

data is available. ‘‘(3) MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.—Each State shall receive not

less than 0.6 percent of the amount made available to carry

out this part in each fiscal year.

‘‘(4) PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION.—If the amounts available

to carry out this part in each fiscal year are insufficient to

pay in full the total payment that any State is otherwise

eligible to receive under paragraph (3), then the Attorney General shall reduce payments under paragraph (1) for such payment period to the extent of such insufficiency. Reductions

under the preceding sentence shall be allocated among the

States (other than States whose payment is determined under

paragraph (3)) in the same proportions as amounts would be

allocated under paragraph (1) without regard to paragraph

(3).

‘‘(b) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘State’ means

each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam,

and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, except

that— ‘‘(1) for purposes of the allocation under this section, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands shall be considered as 1 State; and

‘‘(2) for purposes of paragraph (1), 67 percent of the amount

allocated shall be allocated to American Samoa, and 33 percent

shall be allocated to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

‘‘SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A State that receives a grant under this

part shall use the grant 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.

‘‘(b) PERMITTED CATEGORIES OF FUNDING.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d), a grant awarded under this part—

‘‘(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.

42 USC 3797m.

114 STAT. 2790 PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000

‘‘(c) FACILITIES COSTS.— ‘‘(1) STATES RECEIVING MINIMUM GRANT AMOUNT.—With

respect to a State that receives a grant under this part in

an amount that does not exceed 0.6 percent of the total amount

made available to carry out this part for a fiscal year, not

more than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant may

be used for the costs of any new facility constructed as part

of a program described in subsection (a).

‘‘(2) OTHER STATES.—With respect to a State that receives

a grant under this part in an amount that exceeds 0.6 percent

of the total amount made available to carry out this part

for a fiscal year— ‘‘(A) not more than 80 percent of the amount of the

grant up to that 0.6 percent may be used for the costs

of any new facility constructed as part of a program

described in subsection (a); and ‘‘(B) not more than 40 percent of the amount of the

grant in excess of that 0.6 percent may be used for the

costs of any new facility constructed as part of a program

described in subsection (a). ‘‘(d) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Not more than 10 percent of the

total amount of a grant awarded under this part may be used

for administrative expenses.

‘‘SEC. 2805. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

‘‘(a) REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General may promulgate

such guidelines, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary

to carry out this part, including guidelines, regulations, and procedures relating to the submission and review of applications for

grants under section 2802.

‘‘(b) EXPENDITURE RECORDS.—

‘‘(1) RECORDS.—Each State, or unit of local government

within the State, that receives a grant under this part shall

maintain such records as the Attorney General may require

to facilitate an effective audit relating to the receipt of the

grant, or the use of the grant amount.

‘‘(2) ACCESS.—The Attorney General and the Comptroller

General of the United States, or a designee thereof, shall have

access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any book,

document, or record of a State, or unit of local government

within the State, that receives a grant under this part, if,

in the determination of the Attorney General, Comptroller General, or designee thereof, the book, document, or record is

related to the receipt of the grant, or the use of the grant

amount.

‘‘SEC. 2806. REPORTS.

‘‘(a) REPORTS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—For each fiscal year

for which a grant is awarded under this part, each State that

receives such a grant shall submit to the Attorney General a report,

at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General may

reasonably require, which report shall include—

‘‘(1) a summary and assessment of the program carried

out with the grant;

‘‘(2) the average number of days between submission of

a sample to a forensic science laboratory or forensic science

laboratory system in that State operated by the State or by

42 USC 3797o.

42 USC 3797n.

PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000 114 STAT. 2791

a unit of local government and the delivery of test results

to the requesting office or agency; and ‘‘(3) such other information as the Attorney General may

require.

‘‘(b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after the

last day of each fiscal year for which 1 or more grants are awarded

under this part, the Attorney General shall submit to the Speaker

of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore

of the Senate, a report, which shall include— ‘‘(1) the aggregate amount of grants awarded under this

part for that fiscal year; and ‘‘(2) a summary of the information provided under subsection (a).’’. (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

3753(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(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.’’. (B) BACKLOG ELIMINATION.—There is authorized to be

appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for the elimination of DNA convicted offender database sample backlogs

and for other related purposes, as provided in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.

(3) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.)

is amended by striking the table of contents.

(4) REPEAL OF 20 PERCENT FLOOR FOR CITA CRIME LAB

GRANTS.—Section 102(e)(2) of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601(e)(2)) is amended— (A) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end;

and

(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating

subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 983(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 18, United

States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘(and provide customary documentary evidence of such interest if available) and state that the

claim is not frivolous’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section

shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by section

2(a) of Public Law 106–185.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF

GRANTEE STATES TO ENSURE ACCESS TO POST-CONVICTION

DNA TESTING AND COMPETENT COUNSEL IN CAPITAL

CASES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing

(referred to in this section as ‘‘DNA testing’’) has emerged

42 USC 14135

note.

18 USC 983 note.

42 USC 3793.

Deadline.

114 STAT. 2792 PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000

as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals

when biological material is left at a crime scene;

(2) because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can,

in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence

of a criminal defendant;

(3) in other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant probative

value to a finder of fact;

(4) DNA testing was not widely available in cases tried

prior to 1994;

(5) new forensic DNA testing procedures have made it

possible to get results from minute samples that could not

previously be tested, and to obtain more informative and

accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing

could produce, resulting in some cases of convicted inmates

being exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had

failed to produce definitive results;

(6) DNA testing can and has resulted in the post-conviction

exoneration of more than 75 innocent men and women,

including some under sentence of death;

(7) in more than a dozen cases, post-conviction DNA testing

that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced

public safety by providing evidence that led to the apprehension

of the actual perpetrator;

(8) experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome

to make DNA testing available to inmates in appropriate cases;

(9) under current Federal and State law, it is difficult

to obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits

on introducing newly discovered evidence;

(10) the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice

and comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific

experts, has urged that post-conviction DNA testing be permitted in the relatively small number of cases in which it

is appropriate, notwithstanding procedural rules that could be

invoked to preclude such testing, and notwithstanding the

inability of an inmate to pay for the testing;

(11) only a few States have adopted post-conviction DNA

testing procedures;

(12) States have received millions of dollars in DNA-related

grants, and more funding is needed to improve State forensic

facilities and to reduce the nationwide backlog of DNA samples

from convicted offenders and crime scenes that need to be

tested or retested using upgraded methods;

(13) States that accept such financial assistance should

not deny the promise of truth and justice for both sides of

our adversarial system that DNA testing offers;

(14) post-conviction DNA testing and other post-conviction

investigative techniques have shown that innocent people have

been sentenced to death in this country;

(15) a constitutional error in capital cases is incompetent

defense lawyers who fail to present important evidence that

the defendant may have been innocent or does not deserve

to be sentenced to death; and

(16) providing quality representation to defendants facing

loss of liberty or life is essential to fundamental due process

and the speedy final resolution of judicial proceedings.

PUBLIC LAW 106–561—DEC. 21, 2000 114 STAT. 2793

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3045:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 26, considered and passed Senate.

Dec. 7, considered and passed House.

Æ

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that— (1) Congress should condition forensic science-related

grants to a State or State forensic facility on the State’s agreement to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate

cases; and

(2) Congress should work with the States to improve the

quality of legal representation in capital cases through the

establishment of standards that will assure the timely appointment of competent counsel with adequate resources to represent

defendants in capital cases at each stage of the proceedings.

Approved December 21, 2000.