34 U.S.C. § 40701: The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program

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 samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified suspect. 1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. 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. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–4, title X, § 1006 , Mar. 7, 2013 , 127 Stat. 134 . 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. 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. maximizes the effective utilization of DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety; and 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. The Attorney General shall allocate to each State not less than 0.50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year for grants under this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.125 percent of the total appropriation. 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). For each of fiscal years 2014 through 2029, not less than 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of the grant amounts distributed under paragraph (1) shall, if sufficient applications to justify such amounts are received by the Attorney General, be awarded for purposes described in subsection (a)(7), provided that none of the funds required to be distributed under this paragraph shall decrease or otherwise limit the availability of funds required to be awarded to States or units of local government under paragraph (3). For each fiscal year, not less than 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of the grant amounts distributed under paragraph (1) shall, if sufficient applications to justify such amounts are received by the Attorney General, be awarded for purposes described in subsection (a)(9), provided that none of the funds required to be distributed under this paragraph shall decrease or otherwise limit the availability of funds required to be awarded to States or units of local government under paragraph (3). 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. 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 . A grant for the purposes specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of subsection (a) may be made in the form of a voucher or contract for laboratory services, even if the laboratory makes a reasonable profit for the services. A voucher or contract under subparagraph (A) may be redeemed at a laboratory operated on a nonprofit or for-profit basis, by a private entity that satisfies quality assurance standards and has been approved by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may use amounts authorized under subsection (j) to make payments to a laboratory described under subparagraph (B). Funds made available pursuant to this section shall not be used to supplant State or local government funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State or local government sources for the purposes of this Act. A State or unit of local government may not use more than 3 percent of the funds it receives from this section for administrative expenses. 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. 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. Each State or unit of local government 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. Each State or unit of local government 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. 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. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) $151,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029. 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; 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. 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. In the event that a laboratory operated by a State or unit of local government which has received funds under this Act has undergone an external audit conducted to determine whether the laboratory is in compliance with standards established by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as a result of such audit, identifies measures to remedy deficiencies with respect to the compliance by the laboratory with such standards, the State or unit of local government shall implement any such remediation as soon as practicable. 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). The Director shall make available technical assistance and training to support States and units of local government in adopting and implementing the protocols and practices developed under paragraph (1) on and after the date on which the protocols and practices are published. In this subsection, the terms “awaiting testing” and “possession” have the meanings given those terms in subsection (n). 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.” 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) ]. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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.”