The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program
Authorization of grants
The Attorney General may make grants to eligible States or units of local government for use by the State or unit of local government for the following purposes:
To carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DNA analyses of samples collected under applicable legal authority.
To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined DNA Index System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, prioritizing, to the extent practicable consistent with public safety considerations 1
To increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the State or by units of local government to carry out DNA analyses of samples specified in paragraph (1) or (2).
To collect DNA samples specified in paragraph (1).
To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples from crimes, including sexual assault and other serious violent crimes, are carried out in a timely manner.
To conduct an audit consistent with subsection (n) of the samples of sexual assault evidence that are in the possession of the State or unit of local government and are awaiting testing.
To ensure that the collection and processing of DNA evidence by law enforcement agencies from crimes, in particular, sexual assault and other violent crimes against persons, is carried out in an appropriate and timely manner and in accordance with the protocols and practices developed under subsection (o)(1).
To increase the capacity of State and local prosecution offices to address the backlog of violent crime cases in which suspects have been identified through DNA evidence.
Eligibility
For a State or unit of local government to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, the chief executive officer of the State or unit of local government shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may require. The application shall, as required by the Attorney General—
provide assurances that the State or unit of local government 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;
include a certification that each DNA analysis carried out under the plan shall be maintained pursuant to the privacy requirements described in section 12592(b)(3) of this title;
include a certification that the State or unit of local government 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;
specify the allocation that the State or unit of local government shall make, in using grant amounts to carry out DNA analyses of samples, as between samples specified in subsection (a)(1) and samples specified in subsection (a)(2);
specify that portion of grant amounts that the State or unit of local government shall use for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(3);
if submitted by a unit of local government, certify that the unit of local government has taken, or is taking, all necessary steps to ensure that it is eligible to include, directly or through a State law enforcement agency, all analyses of samples for which it has requested funding in the Combined DNA Index System;
specify that portion of grant amounts that the State or unit of local government shall use for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(4); and
provide assurances that the DNA section of the laboratory to be used to conduct DNA analyses has a written policy that prioritizes the analysis of, to the extent practicable consistent with public safety considerations, samples from homicides and sexual assaults.
Formula for distribution of grants
In general
The Attorney General shall distribute grant amounts, and establish appropriate grant conditions under this section, in conformity with a formula or formulas that are designed to effectuate a distribution of funds among eligible States and units of local government that—
maximizes the effective utilization of DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety; and
allocates grants among eligible entities fairly and efficiently to address jurisdictions in which significant backlogs exist, by considering—
the number of offender and casework samples awaiting DNA analysis in a jurisdiction;
the population in the jurisdiction; and
the number of part 1 violent crimes in the jurisdiction.
Minimum amount
Limitation
Grant amounts distributed under paragraph (1) shall be awarded to conduct DNA analyses of samples from casework or from victims of crime under subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the following limitations:
For fiscal year 2009, not less than 40 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
For each of the fiscal years 2019 through 2024, not less than 40 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2024, not less than 75 percent of the total grant amounts shall be awarded for a combination of purposes under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a).
Allocation of grant awards for audits
Allocation of grant awards for prosecutors
Analysis of samples
In general
A plan pursuant to subsection (b)(1) 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—
operated by the State or a unit of local government; or
operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract with the State or a unit of local government.
Quality assurance standards
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall maintain and make available to States and units of local government a description of quality assurance protocols and practices that the Director considers adequate to assure the quality of a forensic laboratory.
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 12592(b) of this title.
Use of vouchers or contracts for certain purposes
In general
Redemption
Payments
Restrictions on use of funds
Nonsupplanting
Administrative costs
Reports to the Attorney General
Each State or unit of local government 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—
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
such other information as the Attorney General may require.
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—
the aggregate amount of grants made under this section to each State or unit of local government for such fiscal year;
a summary of the information provided by States or units of local government receiving grants under this section; and
a description of the priorities and plan for awarding grants among eligible States and units of local government, and how such plan will ensure the effective use of DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.
Expenditure records
In general
Access
Definition
Authorization of appropriations
Use of funds for accreditation and audits
The Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of the grant amounts under subsection (j)—
to States or units of local government to defray the costs incurred by laboratories operated by each such State or unit of local government in preparing for accreditation or reaccreditation;
in the form of additional grants to States, units of local government, or nonprofit professional organizations of persons actively involved in forensic science and nationally recognized within the forensic science community—
to defray the costs of external audits of laboratories operated by such State or unit of local government, which participates in the National DNA Index System, to determine whether the laboratory is in compliance with quality assurance standards;
to assess compliance with any plans submitted to the National Institute of Justice, which detail the use of funds received by States or units of local government under this Act; and
to support future capacity building efforts; and
in the form of additional grants to nonprofit professional associations actively involved in forensic science and nationally recognized within the forensic science community to defray the costs of training persons who conduct external audits of laboratories operated by States and units of local government and which participate in the National DNA Index System.
Use of funds for other forensic sciences
The Attorney General may award a grant under this section to a State or unit of local government to alleviate a backlog of cases with respect to a forensic science other than DNA analysis if the State or unit of local government—
certifies to the Attorney General that in such State or unit—
all of the purposes set forth in subsection (a) have been met;
a significant backlog of casework is not waiting for DNA analysis; and
there is no need for significant laboratory equipment, supplies, or additional personnel for timely DNA processing of casework or offender samples; and
demonstrates to the Attorney General that such State or unit requires assistance in alleviating a backlog of cases involving a forensic science other than DNA analysis.
External audits and remedial efforts
Repealed. Pub. L. 113–4, title X, § 1006, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 134
Establishment of protocols, technical assistance, and definitions
Protocols and practices
Not later than 18 months after
how to determine—
which evidence is to be collected by law enforcement personnel and forwarded for testing;
the preferred order in which evidence from the same case is to be tested; and
what information to take into account when establishing the order in which evidence from different cases is to be tested;
the establishment of a reasonable period of time in which evidence is to be forwarded by emergency response providers, law enforcement personnel, and prosecutors to a laboratory for testing;
the establishment of reasonable periods of time in which each stage of analytical laboratory testing is to be completed;
systems to encourage communication within a State or unit of local government among emergency response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, courts, defense counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence to be tested; and
standards for conducting the audit of the backlog for DNA case work in sexual assault cases required under subsection (n).
Technical assistance and training
Definitions
Source
(Pub. L. 106–546, § 2,Notes
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Codification
Amendments
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Termination Date of 2013 Amendment
Reports to Congress
lists the States and units of local government that have been awarded such grants and the amount of the grant received by each such State or unit of local government;
states the number of extensions granted by the Attorney General under section 2(n)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 [34 U.S.C. 40701(n)(3)], as added by section 1002; and
summarizes the processing status of the samples of sexual assault evidence identified in Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reports established under section 2(n)(4) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 [34 U.S.C. 40701(n)(4)], including the number of samples that have not been tested.”
Oversight and Accountability
Audit requirement.—
Beginning in fiscal year 2013, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of grants under this title to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
Mandatory exclusion.—
A recipient of grant funds under this title that is found to have an unresolved audit finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under this title during the 2 fiscal years beginning after the 12-month period described in paragraph (5).
Priority.—
In awarding grants under this title, the Attorney General shall give priority to eligible entities that, during the 3 fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant under this title, did not have an unresolved audit finding showing a violation in the terms or conditions of a Department of Justice grant program.
Reimbursement.—
If an entity is awarded grant funds under this Act [Pub. L. 113–4, see Tables for classification] during the 2-fiscal-year period in which the entity is barred from receiving grants under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall—
deposit an amount equal to the grant funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the General Fund of the Treasury; and
seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant funds.
Defined term.—
In this section, the term ‘unresolved audit finding’ means an audit report finding in the final audit report of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within a 12-month period beginning on the date when the final audit report is issued.
Nonprofit organization requirements.—
Definition.—
For purposes of this section and the grant programs described in this title, the term ‘nonprofit organization’ means an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)] and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
Prohibition.—
The Attorney General shall not award a grant under any grant program described in this title to a nonprofit organization that holds money in offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 511(a)].
Disclosure.—
Each nonprofit organization that is awarded a grant under a grant program described in this title and uses the procedures prescribed in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for the compensation of its officers, directors, trustees and key employees, shall disclose to the Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the process for determining such compensation, including the independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such compensation, the comparability data used, and contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the information disclosed under this subsection available for public inspection.
Administrative expenses.—
Unless otherwise explicitly provided in authorizing legislation, not more than 7.5 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under this title may be used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative expenses of the Department of Justice.
Conference expenditures.—
Limitation.—
No amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice under this title may be used by the Attorney General or by any individual or organization awarded discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement under this Act, to host or support any expenditure for conferences that uses more than $20,000 in Department funds, unless the Deputy Attorney General or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, Director, or principal deputy as the Deputy Attorney General may designate, provides prior written authorization that the funds may be expended to host a conference.
Written approval.—
Written approval under subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all costs associated with the conference, including the cost of all food and beverages, audio/visual equipment, honoraria for speakers, and any entertainment.
Report.—
The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on all conference expenditures approved by operation of this paragraph.
Prohibition on lobbying activity.—
In general.—
Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this title may not be utilized by any grant recipient to—
lobby any representative of the Department of Justice regarding the award of grant funding; or
lobby any representative of a Federal, state, local, or tribal government regarding the award of grant funding.
Penalty.—
If the Attorney General determines that any recipient of a grant under this title has violated subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall—
require the grant recipient to repay the grant in full; and
prohibit the grant recipient from receiving another grant under this title for not less than 5 years.”
Sense of Congress Regarding the Obligation of Grantee States to Ensure Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Competent Counsel in Capital Cases
Findings.—
Congress finds that—
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;
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 probative value to a finder of fact;
DNA testing was not widely available in cases tried prior to 1994;
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;
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;
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;
experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome to make DNA testing available to inmates in appropriate cases;
under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits on introducing newly discovered evidence;
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;
only a few States have adopted post-conviction DNA testing procedures;
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;
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;
post-conviction DNA testing and other post-conviction investigative techniques have shown that innocent people have been sentenced to death in this country;
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
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.
Sense of Congress.—
It is the sense of Congress that—
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
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.”