§ 14135. Authorization of Grants

(a) Authorization of grants

     The Attorney General may make grants to eligible States for use by the State for the following purposes:

     (1) To carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DNA analyses of samples taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying State offense (as determined under subsection (b)(3) of this section).

     (2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined DNA Index System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes.

     (3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the State or by units of local government within the State to carry out DNA analyses of samples specified in paragraph (2).

(b) Eligibility

     For a State to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, the chief executive officer of the State shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may require. The application shall—

     (1) provide assurances that the State has implemented, or will implement not later than 120 days after the date of such application, a comprehensive plan for the expeditious DNA analysis of samples in accordance with this section;

     (2) include a certification that each DNA analysis carried out under the plan shall be maintained pursuant to the privacy requirements described in section 14132(b)(3) of this title;

     (3) include a certification that the State has determined, by statute, rule, or regulation, those offenses under State law that shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying State offenses;

     (4) specify the allocation that the State shall make, in using grant amounts to carry out DNA analyses of samples, as between samples specified in subsection (a)(1) of this section and samples specified in subsection (a)(2) of this section; and

     (5) specify that portion of grant amounts that the State shall use for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(3) of this section.

(c) Crimes without suspects

     A State that proposes to allocate grant amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) of this section for the purposes specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall use such allocated amounts to conduct or facilitate DNA analyses of those samples that relate to crimes in connection with which there are no suspects.

(d) Analysis of samples

(1) In general

     The plan shall require that, except as provided in paragraph (3), each DNA analysis be carried out in a laboratory that satisfies quality assurance standards and is—

     (A) operated by the State or a unit of local government within the State; or

     (B) operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract with the State or a unit of local government within the State.

(2) Quality assurance standards

     (A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall maintain and make available to States a description of quality assurance protocols and practices that the Director considers adequate to assure the quality of a forensic laboratory.

     (B) For purposes of this section, a laboratory satisfies quality assurance standards if the laboratory satisfies the quality control requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 14132(b) of this title.

(3) Use of vouchers for certain purposes

     A grant for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section may be made in the form of a voucher for laboratory services, which may be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private entity approved by the Attorney General that satisfies quality assurance standards. The Attorney General may make payment to such a laboratory for the analysis of DNA samples using amounts authorized for those purposes under subsection (j) of this section.

(e) Restrictions on use of funds

(1) Nonsupplanting

     Funds made available pursuant to this section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State sources for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Administrative costs

     A State may not use more than 3 percent of the funds it receives from this section for administrative expenses.

(f) Reports to the Attorney General

     Each State which receives a grant under this section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year in which funds from a grant received under this section is expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General may reasonably require, which contains—

     (1) a summary of the activities carried out under the grant and an assessment of whether such activities are meeting the needs identified in the application; and

     (2) such other information as the Attorney General may require.

(g) Reports to Congress

     Not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this section, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report that includes—

     (1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this section to each State for such fiscal year; and

     (2) a summary of the information provided by States receiving grants under this section.

(h) Expenditure records

(1) In general

     Each State which receives a grant under this section shall keep records as the Attorney General may require to facilitate an effective audit of the receipt and use of grant funds received under this section.

(2) Access

     Each State which receives a grant under this section shall make available, for the purpose of audit and examination, such records as are related to the receipt or use of any such grant.

(i) Definition

     For purposes of this section, the term "State" means 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 Mariana Islands.

(j) Authorization of appropriations

     Amounts are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) of this section as follows:

     (1) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) of such subsection—

     (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

     (B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and

     (C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

     (2) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of such subsection—

     (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

     (B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

     (C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and

     (D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

(Pub. L. 106–546, § 2, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2726.)

References in Text

     This Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(1), is Pub. L. 106–546, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2726, known as the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2000 Amendments note set out under section 13701 of this title and Tables.

Codification

     Section was enacted as part of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and not as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which enacted this chapter.

Sense of Congress Regarding the Obligation of Grantee States to Ensure Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Competent Counsel in Capital Cases

     Pub. L. 106–561, § 4, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2791, provided that:

     "(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—

"(1) over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing (referred to in this section as `DNA testing’) has emerged 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.

     "(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."

     Pub. L. 106–546, § 11, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2735, enacted provisions substantially identical to those enacted by Pub. L. 106–561, § 4, set out above.

Section Referred to in Other Sections

     This section is referred to in section 14135e of this title.