I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4078
To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 23, 2000
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Innocence Protection Act of 2000’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for
this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING
Sec. 101. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 102. DNA testing in Federal criminal justice system.
Sec. 103. DNA testing in State criminal justice systems.
Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment.
TITLE II—ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL
CASES
Sec. 201. Amendments to Byrne grant programs.
Sec. 202. Effect on procedural default rules.
Sec. 203. Capital representation grants.
TITLE III—COMPENSATING THE UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED
Sec. 301. Increased compensation in Federal cases.
Sec. 302. Compensation in State death penalty cases.
TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Accommodation of State interests in Federal death penalty prosecu-
tions.
Sec. 402. Alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of release.
Sec. 403. Right to an informed jury.
Sec. 404. Annual reports.
Sec. 405. Discretionary appellate review.
TITLE I—EXONERATING THE IN-
NOCENT 
THROUGH 
DNA
TESTING
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings:
(1) Over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid
testing (referred to in this section as ‘‘DNA test-
ing’’) has emerged as the most reliable forensic tech-
nique for identifying criminals when biological mate-
rial 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. In other
cases, DNA testing may not conclusively establish
guilt or innocence, but may have significant pro-
bative value to a finder of fact.
(3) While DNA testing is increasingly common-
place in pretrial investigations today, it was not
widely available in cases tried prior to 1994. More-
over, 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. Con-
sequently, in some cases convicted inmates have
been exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests
had failed to produce definitive results.
(4) Since DNA testing is often feasible on rel-
evant biological material that is decades old, it can,
in some circumstances, prove that a conviction that
predated the development of DNA testing was based
upon incorrect factual findings. Uniquely, DNA evi-
dence showing innocence, produced decades after a
conviction, provides a more reliable basis for estab-
lishing a correct verdict than any evidence proffered
at the original trial. DNA testing, therefore, can and
has resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of in-
nocent men and women.
(5) In the past decade, there have been more
than 65 post-conviction exonerations in the United
States and Canada based upon DNA testing. At
least 8 individuals sentenced to death have been ex-
onerated through post-conviction DNA testing, some
of whom came within days of being executed.
(6) The 2 States that have established statutory
processes for post-conviction DNA testing, Illinois
and New York, have the most post-conviction DNA
exonerations, 14 and 7, respectively.
(7) The advent of DNA testing raises serious
concerns regarding the prevalence of wrongful con-
victions, especially wrongful convictions arising out
of mistaken eyewitness identification testimony. Ac-
cording to a 1996 Department of Justice study enti-
tled ‘‘Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science:
Case Studies of Post-Conviction DNA Exonera-
tions’’, in approximately 20 to 30 percent of the
cases referred for DNA testing, the results excluded
the primary suspect. Without DNA testing, many of
these individuals might have been wrongfully con-
victed.
(8) Laws in more than 30 States require that
a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence of innocence be filed within 6 months or
egories of cases, notwithstanding procedural rules
that could be invoked to preclude such testing, and
notwithstanding the inability of the inmate to pay
for the testing.
(11) The number of cases in which post-convic-
tion DNA testing is appropriate is relatively small
and will decrease as pretrial testing becomes more
common and accessible.
(12) The cost of DNA testing has also de-
creased in recent years. The typical case, involving
the analysis of 8 samples, currently costs between
$2,400 and $5,000, depending upon jurisdictional
differences in personnel costs.
(13) In 1994, Congress authorized funding to
improve the quality and availability of DNA analysis
for law enforcement identification purposes. Since
then, States have been awarded over $50,000,000 in
DNA-related grants.
(14) Although the Supreme Court has never an-
nounced a standard for addressing constitutional
claims of innocence, in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S.
390 (1993), a majority of the Court expressed the
view that, ‘‘a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘ac-
tual innocence’ ’’ made after trial would render im-
position of punishment by a State unconstitutional.
(15) If biological material is not subjected to
DNA testing in appropriate cases, there is a signifi-
cant risk that persuasive evidence of innocence will
not be detected and, accordingly, that innocent per-
sons will be unconstitutionally incarcerated or exe-
cuted.
(16) To prevent violations of the Constitution
of the United States that the Supreme Court antici-
pated in Herrera v. Collins, it is necessary and prop-
er to enact national legislation that ensures that the
Federal Government and the States will permit
DNA testing in appropriate cases.
(17) There is also a compelling need to ensure
the preservation of biological material for post-con-
viction DNA testing. Since 1992, the Innocence
Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
has received thousands of letters from inmates who
claim that DNA testing could prove them innocent.
In over 70 percent of those cases in which DNA
testing could have been dispositive of guilt or inno-
cence if the biological material were available, the
material had been destroyed or lost. In two-thirds of
the cases in which the evidence was found, and DNA
testing conducted, the results have exonerated the
inmate.
(18) In at least 14 cases, post-conviction DNA
testing that has exonerated a wrongly convicted per-
son has also provided evidence leading to the appre-
hension of the actual perpetrator, thereby enhancing
public safety. This would not have been possible if
the biological evidence had been destroyed.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this title are to—
(1) substantially implement the Recommenda-
tions of the National Commission on the Future of
DNA Evidence in the Federal criminal justice sys-
tem, by ensuring the availability of DNA testing in
appropriate cases;
(2) prevent the imposition of unconstitutional
punishments through the exercise of power granted
by clause 1 of section 8 and clause 2 of section 9
of article I of the Constitution of the United States
and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States; and
(3) ensure that wrongfully convicted persons
have an opportunity to establish their innocence
through DNA testing, by requiring the preservation
of DNA evidence for a limited period.
SEC. 102. DNA TESTING IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part VI of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 155 the fol-
lowing:
‘‘CHAPTER 156—DNA TESTING
‘‘Sec.
‘‘2291. DNA testing.
‘‘2292. Preservation of biological material.
‘‘§ 2291. DNA testing
‘‘(a) APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, a person in custody pursuant to the judg-
ment of a court established by an Act of Congress may,
at any time after conviction, apply to the court that en-
tered the judgment for forensic DNA testing of any bio-
logical material that—
‘‘(1) is related to the investigation or prosecu-
tion that resulted in the judgment;
‘‘(2) is in the actual or constructive possession
of the Government; and
‘‘(3) was not previously subjected to DNA test-
ing, or can be subjected to retesting with new DNA
techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of
more accurate and probative results.
‘‘(b) NOTICE TO GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The court shall notify the
Government of an application made under subsection
(a) and shall afford the Government an opportunity
to respond.
‘‘(2) PRESERVATION OF REMAINING BIOLOGI-
CAL MATERIAL.—Upon receiving notice of an appli-
cation made under subsection (a), the Government
shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that
any remaining biological material that was secured
in connection with the case is preserved pending the
completion of proceedings under this section.
‘‘(c) ORDER.—The court shall order DNA testing
pursuant to an application made under subsection (a)
upon a determination that testing may produce noncumu-
lative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim of the
applicant that the applicant was wrongfully convicted or
sentenced.
‘‘(d) COST.—The cost of DNA testing ordered under
subsection (c) shall be borne by the Government or the
applicant, as the court may order in the interests of jus-
tice, if it is shown that the applicant is not indigent and
possesses the means to pay.
‘‘(e) COUNSEL.—The court may at any time appoint
counsel for an indigent applicant under this section.
‘‘(f) POST-TESTING PROCEDURES.—
‘‘(1) PROCEDURES FOLLOWING RESULTS UNFA-
VORABLE TO APPLICANT.—If the results of DNA
testing conducted under this section are unfavorable
to the applicant, the court—
‘‘(A) shall dismiss the application; and
‘‘(B) in the case of an applicant who is not
indigent, may assess the applicant for the cost
of such testing.
‘‘(2) PROCEDURES
FOLLOWING
RESULTS
FA-
VORABLE TO APPLICANT.—If the results of DNA
testing conducted under this section are favorable to
the applicant, the court shall—
‘‘(A) order a hearing, notwithstanding any
provision of law that would bar such a hearing;
and
‘‘(B) enter any order that serves the inter-
ests of justice, including an order—
‘‘(i) vacating and setting aside the
judgment;
‘‘(ii) discharging the applicant if the
applicant is in custody;
‘‘(iii) resentencing the applicant; or
‘‘(iv) granting a new trial.
‘‘(g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-
tion shall be construed to limit the circumstances under
which a person may obtain DNA testing or other post-
conviction relief under any other provision of law.
is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter
155 the following:
‘‘156. DNA Testing .............................................................................. 2291’’.
SEC. 103. DNA TESTING IN STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYS-
TEMS.
(a) DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANT PROGRAM.—Sec-
tion 2403 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796kk–2) is
amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)—
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘will’’;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘is
charged’’ and inserting ‘‘was charged or con-
victed’’; and
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking
‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3)—
(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting
‘‘will’’; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(4) the State will—
‘‘(A) preserve all biological material se-
cured in connection with a State criminal case
for not less than the period of time that biologi-
cal material is required to be preserved under
section 2292 of title 28, United States Code, in
the case of a person incarcerated in connection
with a Federal criminal case; and
‘‘(B) make DNA testing available to any
person convicted in State court to the same ex-
tent, and under the same conditions, that DNA
testing is available under section 2291 of title
28, United States Code, to any person convicted
in a court established by an Act of Congress.’’.
(b) DRUG CONTROL
AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 503(a)(12) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3753(a)(12)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (B)—
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘is charged’’
and inserting ‘‘was charged or convicted’’; and
(B) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period
at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) the State will—
‘‘(i) preserve all biological material se-
cured in connection with a State criminal
case for not less than the period of time
that biological material is required to be
preserved under section 2292 of title 28,
United States Code, in the case of a per-
son incarcerated in connection with a Fed-
eral criminal case; and
‘‘(ii) make DNA testing available to a
person convicted in State court to the
same extent, and under the same condi-
tions, that DNA testing is available under
section 2291 of title 28, United States
Code, to a person convicted in a court es-
tablished by an Act of Congress.’’.
(c) PUBLIC SAFETY
AND COMMUNITY POLICING
GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 1702(c) of title I of the Om-
nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd–1(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at
the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(12) if any part of funds received from a grant
made under this subchapter is to be used to develop
or improve a DNA analysis capability in a forensic
laboratory, or to obtain or analyze DNA samples for
inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS), certify that—
‘‘(A) DNA analyses performed at such lab-
oratory will satisfy or exceed the current stand-
ards for a quality assurance program for DNA
analysis, issued by the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation under section 210303
of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14131);
‘‘(B) DNA samples and analyses obtained
and performed by such laboratory will be acces-
sible only—
‘‘(i) to criminal justice agencies for
law enforcement purposes;
‘‘(ii) in judicial proceedings, if other-
wise admissible under applicable statutes
and rules;
‘‘(iii) for criminal defense purposes, to
a defendant, who shall have access to sam-
ples and analyses performed in connection
with the case in which the defendant was
charged or convicted; or
‘‘(iv) if personally identifiable infor-
mation is removed, for a population statis-
tics database, for identification research
and protocol development purposes, or for
quality control purposes;
‘‘(C) the laboratory and each analyst per-
forming DNA analyses at the laboratory will
undergo, at regular intervals not exceeding 180
days, external proficiency testing by a DNA
proficiency testing program that meets the
standards issued under section 210303 of the
DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
14131); and
‘‘(D) the State will—
‘‘(i) preserve all biological material se-
cured in connection with a State criminal
case for not less than the period of time
that biological material is required to be
preserved under section 2292 of title 28,
United States Code, in the case of a per-
son incarcerated in connection with a Fed-
eral criminal case; and
‘‘(ii) make DNA testing available to
any person convicted in State court to the
same extent, and under the same condi-
tions, that DNA testing is available under
section 2291 of title 28, United States
Code, to a person convicted in a court es-
tablished by an Act of Congress.’’.
SEC. 104. PROHIBITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE
14TH AMENDMENT.
(a) REQUEST FOR DNA TESTING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No State shall deny a re-
quest, made by a person in custody resulting from
a State court judgment, for DNA testing of biologi-
cal material that—
(A) is related to the investigation or pros-
ecution that resulted in the conviction of the
person or the sentence imposed on the person;
(B) is in the actual or constructive posses-
sion of the State; and
(C) was not previously subjected to DNA
testing, or can be subjected to retesting with
new DNA techniques that provide a reasonable
likelihood of more accurate and probative re-
sults.
(2) EXCEPTION.—A State may deny a request
under paragraph (1) upon a judicial determination
that testing could not produce noncumulative evi-
dence establishing a reasonable probability that the
person was wrongfully convicted or sentenced.
(b) OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT RESULTS OF DNA
TESTING.—No State shall rely upon a time limit or proce-
dural default rule to deny a person an opportunity to
present noncumulative, exculpatory DNA results in court,
or in an executive or administrative forum in which a deci-
sion is made in accordance with procedural due process.
(c) REMEDY.—A person may enforce subsections (a)
and (b) in a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief,
filed either in a State court of general jurisdiction or in
a district court of the United States, naming either the
State or an executive or judicial officer of the State as
defendant. No State or State executive or judicial officer
shall have immunity from actions under this subsection.
TITLE 
II—ENSURING 
COM-
PETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN
CAPITAL CASES
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO BYRNE GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) 
CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT; 
FORMULA
GRANTS.—Section 503 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753)
is amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘(13) If the State prescribes, authorizes, or
permits the penalty of death for any offense, a cer-
tification that the State has established and main-
tains an effective system for providing competent
legal services to indigents at every phase of a State
criminal prosecution in which a death sentence is
sought or has been imposed, up to and including di-
rect appellate review and post-conviction review in
State court.’’; and
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) by striking ‘‘(b) Within 30 days after
the date of enactment of this part, the’’ and in-
serting the following:
‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS.—The Di-
rector of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, after notice and an opportunity for
comment, shall promulgate regulations specifying
the elements of an effective system within the mean-
ing of subsection (a)(13), which elements shall
include—
‘‘(A) a centralized and independent ap-
pointing authority, which shall have authority
and responsibility to—
‘‘(i) recruit attorneys who are quali-
fied to represent indigents in the capital
proceedings specified in subsection (a)(13);
‘‘(ii) draft and annually publish a ros-
ter of qualified attorneys;
‘‘(iii) draft and annually publish quali-
fications and performance standards that
attorneys must satisfy to be listed on the
roster and procedures by which qualified
attorneys are identified;
‘‘(iv) periodically review the roster,
monitor the performance of all attorneys
appointed, provide a mechanism by which
members of the Bar may comment on the
performance of their peers, and delete the
name of any attorney who fails to complete
regular training programs on the represen-
tation of clients in capital cases, fails to
meet performance standards in a case to
which the attorney is appointed, or other-
wise fails to demonstrate continuing com-
petence to represent clients in capital
cases;
‘‘(v) conduct or sponsor specialized
training programs for attorneys rep-
resenting clients in capital cases;
‘‘(vi) appoint lead counsel and co-
counsel from the roster to represent a de-
fendant in a capital case promptly upon re-
ceiving notice of the need for an appoint-
ment from the relevant State court; and
‘‘(vii) report the appointment, or the
failure of the defendant to accept such ap-
pointment, to the court requesting the ap-
pointment;
‘‘(B) compensation of private attorneys for
actual time and service, computed on an hourly
basis and at a reasonable hourly rate in light of
the qualifications and experience of the attorney
and the local market for legal representation in
cases reflecting the complexity and responsi-
bility of capital cases;
‘‘(C) reimbursement of private attorneys
and public defender organizations for attorney
expenses reasonably incurred in the representa-
tion of a client in a capital case, computed on
an hourly basis reflecting the local market for
such services; and
‘‘(D) reimbursement of private attorneys
and public defender organizations for the rea-
sonable costs of law clerks, paralegals, inves-
tigators, experts, scientific tests, and other sup-
port services necessary in the representation of
a defendant in a capital case, computed on an
hourly basis reflecting the local market for such
services.’’.
(b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT; DISCRETIONARY
GRANTS.—Section 517(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3763(a))
is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at
the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) satisfies the certification requirement es-
tablished by section 503(a)(13).’’.
(c) DIRECTOR’S REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Section
522(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3766b(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para-
graph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(5) descriptions and a comparative analysis of
the systems established by each State in order to
satisfy the certification requirement established by
section 503(a)(13), except that the descriptions and
the comparative analysis shall include—
‘‘(A) the qualifications and performance
standards established pursuant to section
503(b)(2)(A)(iii);
‘‘(B) the rates of compensation paid under
section 503(b)(2)(B); and
‘‘(C) the rates of reimbursement paid
under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section
503(b)(2); and’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
the amendments made by this section shall apply
with respect to any application submitted on or after
the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) EXCEPTION.—The amendments made by
this section shall not take effect until the amount
made available for a fiscal year to carry out part E
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 equals or exceeds an amount
that is $50,000,000 greater than the amount made
available to carry out that part for fiscal year 2000.
(e) REGULATIONS.—The Director of the Administra-
tive Office of the United States Courts shall issue all regu-
lations necessary to carry out the amendments made by
this section not later than 180 days before the effective
date of those regulations.
SEC. 202. EFFECT ON PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULES.
Section 2254(e) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘In a pro-
ceeding’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in para-
graph (3), in a proceeding’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(3) In a proceeding instituted by an indigent
applicant under sentence of death, the court shall
neither presume a finding of fact made by a State
court to be correct nor decline to consider a claim
on the ground that the applicant failed to raise such
claim in State court at the time and in the manner
prescribed by State law, unless—
‘‘(A) the State provided the applicant with
legal services at the stage of the State pro-
ceedings at which the State court made the
finding of fact or the applicant failed to raise
the claim; and
‘‘(B) the legal services the State provided
satisfied the regulations promulgated by the Di-
rector of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts pursuant to section
503(b)(2) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-
trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968.’’.
SEC. 203. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION GRANTS.
Section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and (k)
as subsections (j), (k), and (l), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(i) CAPITAL REPRESENTATION GRANTS.—
‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection—
‘‘(A) the term ‘capital case’—
‘‘(i) means any criminal case in which
a defendant prosecuted in a State court is
subject to a sentence of death or in which
a death sentence has been imposed; and
‘‘(ii) includes all proceedings filed in
connection with the case, including trial,
appellate, and Federal and State post-con-
viction proceedings;
‘‘(B) the term ‘defense services’ includes—
‘‘(i) recruitment of counsel;
‘‘(ii) training of counsel;
‘‘(iii) legal and administrative support
and assistance to counsel;
‘‘(iv) direct representation of defend-
ants, if the availability of other qualified
counsel is inadequate to meet the need in
the jurisdiction served by the grant recipi-
ent; and
‘‘(v) investigative, expert, or other
services necessary for adequate representa-
tion; and
‘‘(C) the term ‘Director’ means the Direc-
tor of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts.
‘‘(2) GRANT AWARD AND CONTRACT AUTHOR-
ITY.—Notwithstanding subsection (g), the Director
shall award grants to, or enter into contracts with,
public agencies or private nonprofit organizations for
the purpose of providing defense services in capital
cases.
‘‘(3) PURPOSES.—Grants and contracts award-
ed under this subsection shall be used in connection
with capital cases in the jurisdiction of the grant re-
cipient for 1 or more of the following purposes:
‘‘(A) Enhancing the availability, com-
petence, and prompt assignment of counsel.
‘‘(B) Encouraging continuity of represen-
tation between Federal and State proceedings.
‘‘(C) Decreasing the cost of providing
qualified counsel.
‘‘(D) Increasing the efficiency with which
such cases are resolved.
‘‘(4) GUIDELINES.—The Director, in consulta-
tion with the Judicial Conference of the United
States, shall develop guidelines to ensure that de-
fense services provided by recipients of grants and
contracts awarded under this subsection are con-
sistent with applicable legal and ethical proscriptions
governing the duties of counsel in capital cases.
‘‘(5) CONSULTATION.—In awarding grants and
contracts under this subsection, the Director shall
consult with representatives of the highest State
court, the organized bar, and the defense bar of the
jurisdiction to be served by the recipient of the grant
or contract.’’.
TITLE III—COMPENSATING THE
UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED
SEC. 301. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES.
Section 2513 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(e) DAMAGES.—
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The amount of damages
awarded in an action described in subsection (a)
shall not exceed $50,000 for each 12-month period
of incarceration, except that a plaintiff who was un-
justly sentenced to death may be awarded not more
than $100,000 for each 12-month period of incarcer-
ation.
‘‘(2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESS-
ING DAMAGES.—In assessing damages in an action
described 
in 
subsection 
(a), 
the 
court 
shall
consider—
‘‘(A) the circumstances surrounding the
unjust conviction of the plaintiff, including any
misconduct by officers or employees of the Fed-
eral Government;
‘‘(B) the length and conditions of the un-
just incarceration of the plaintiff; and
‘‘(C) the family circumstances, loss of
wages, and pain and suffering of the plaintiff.’’.
SEC. 302. COMPENSATION IN STATE DEATH PENALTY
CASES.
(a) CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 603(a) of title I of the Omni-
bus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3769b(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at
the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(7) reasonable assurance that the applicant, or
the State in which the applicant is located—
‘‘(A) does not prescribe, authorize, or per-
mit the penalty of death for any offense; or
‘‘(B)(i) has established and maintains an
effective procedure by which any person un-
justly convicted of an offense against the State
and sentenced to death may be awarded reason-
able damages upon substantial proof that the
person did not commit any of the acts with
which the person was charged; and
‘‘(ii)(I) the conviction of that person was
reversed or set aside on the ground that the
person was not guilty of the offense or offenses
of which the person was convicted;
‘‘(II) the person was found not guilty of
such offense or offenses on new trial or rehear-
ing; or
‘‘(III) the person was pardoned upon the
stated ground of innocence and unjust convic-
tion.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section shall apply with respect to any application
submitted on or after the date that is 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. ACCOMMODATION OF STATE INTERESTS IN FED-
ERAL DEATH PENALTY PROSECUTIONS.
(a) RECOGNITION OF STATE INTERESTS.—Chapter
228 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
‘‘§ 3599. Accommodation of State interests; certifi-
cation requirement
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, the Government shall not seek the death
penalty in any case initially brought before a district court
of the United States that sits in a State that does not
prescribe, authorize, or permit the imposition of such pen-
alty for the alleged conduct, except upon the certification
in writing of the Attorney General or the designee of the
Attorney General that—
‘‘(1) the State does not have jurisdiction or re-
fuses to assume jurisdiction over the defendant with
respect to the alleged conduct;
‘‘(2) the State has requested that the Federal
Government assume jurisdiction; or
‘‘(3) the offense charged is an offense described
in section 32, 229, 351, 794, 1091, 1114, 1118,
1203, 1751, 1992, 2340A, or 2381, or chapter
113B.
‘‘(b) ‘‘STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘State’ means each of the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and
possessions of the United States.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—
The analysis for chapter 228 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘3599. Accommodation of State interests; certification requirement.’’.
SEC. 402. ALTERNATIVE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE.
Section 408(l) of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 848(l)), is amended by striking the first 2 sen-
tences and inserting the following: ‘‘Upon a recommenda-
tion under subsection (k) that the defendant should be
sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility
of release, the court shall sentence the defendant accord-
ingly. Otherwise, the court shall impose any lesser sen-
tence that is authorized by law.’’.
SEC. 403. RIGHT TO AN INFORMED JURY.
(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—Section 20105 of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 13705) is amended by striking subsection
(b) and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—To be eligible to
receive a grant under section 20103 or 20104, a State
shall provide assurances to the Attorney General that—
‘‘(1) the State has implemented policies that
provide for the recognition of the rights and needs
of crime victims; and
‘‘(2) in any capital case in which the jury has
a role in determining the sentence imposed on the
defendant, the court, at the request of the defend-
ant, shall inform the jury of all statutorily author-
ized sentencing options in the particular case, in-
cluding applicable parole eligibility rules and
terms.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section shall apply with respect to any application for
a grant under section 20103 or 20104 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13703; 13704) that is submitted on or after the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 404. ANNUAL REPORTS.
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the At-
torney General shall prepare and transmit to Congress a
report concerning the administration of capital punish-
ment laws by the Federal Government and the States.
(b) REPORT ELEMENTS.—The report required under
subsection (a) shall include substantially the same cat-
egories of information as are included in the Bureau of
Justice Statistics Bulletin entitled ‘‘Capital Punishment
1998’’ (December 1999, NCJ 179012), and the following
additional categories of information:
(1) The percentage of death-eligible cases in
which a death sentence is sought, and the percent-
age in which it is imposed.
(2) The race of the defendants in death-eligible
cases, including death-eligible cases in which a death
sentence is not sought, and the race of the victims.
(3) An analysis of the effect of Witherspoon v.
Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), and its progeny, on
the composition of juries in capital cases, including
the racial composition of such juries, and on the ex-
clusion of otherwise eligible and available jurors
from such cases.
(4) An analysis of the effect of peremptory
challenges, by the prosecution and defense respec-
tively, on the composition of juries in capital cases,
including the racial composition of such juries, and
on the exclusion of otherwise eligible and available
jurors from such cases.
(5) The percentage of capital cases in which life
without parole is available as an alternative to a
death sentence, and the sentences imposed in such
cases.
(6) The percentage of capital cases in which life
without parole is not available as an alternative to
a death sentence, and the sentences imposed in such
cases.
(7) The percentage of capital cases in which
counsel is retained by the defendant, and the per-
centage in which counsel is appointed by the court.
(8) A comparative analysis of systems for ap-
pointing counsel in capital cases in different States.
(9) A State-by-State analysis of the rates of
compensation paid in capital cases to appointed
counsel and their support staffs.
(10) The percentage of cases in which a death
sentence or a conviction underlying a death sentence
is vacated, reversed, or set aside, and the reasons
therefore.
(c) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.—The Attorney General or
the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, as ap-
propriate, shall ensure that the reports referred to in sub-
section (a) are—
(1) distributed to national print and broadcast
media; and
(2) posted on an Internet website maintained
by the Department of Justice.