34 USC 40701 - The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified suspect.

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Subchapter III of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(6), was in the original “the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012”, meaning Puspan. L. 112–253, Jan. 10, 2013, 126 Stat. 2407, which is classified principally to subchapter III (§ 40741 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2013 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

This Act, referred to in subsecs. (e)(1), (k)(2)(B), and (m), is Puspan. 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 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14135 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section. Some section numbers or references in amendment notes below reflect the classification of such sections or references prior to editorial reclassification.

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (c)(4). Puspan. L. 118–72, § 3, substituted “2029” for “2022”.

Subsec. (j). Puspan. L. 118–72, § 2, substituted “fiscal years 2024 through 2029” for “fiscal years 2019 through 2024”.

2019—Subsec. (a)(2). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(1)(A), substituted “prioritizing, to the extent practicable consistent with public safety considerations” for “including”.

Subsec. (a)(8). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(1)(B), substituted “in particular,” for “including”.

Subsec. (span)(8). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(2), added par. (8).

Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(3)(A), substituted “2019 through 2024” for “2014 through 2019”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(C). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(3)(B), substituted “2019 through 2024” for “2014 through 2019”.

Subsec. (j). Puspan. L. 116–104, § 2(4), substituted “2019 through 2024” for “2015 through 2019”.

2018—Subsec. (a)(9). Puspan. L. 115–257, § 2(a)(1), added par. (9).

Subsec. (c)(4). Puspan. L. 115–107 substituted “2022” for “2017”.

Subsec. (c)(5). Puspan. L. 115–257, § 2(a)(2), added par. (5).

2014—Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Puspan. L. 113–182, § 2(1)(A), substituted “2014 through 2019” for “2010 through 2018”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(C). Puspan. L. 113–182, § 2(1)(B), substituted “2019” for “2018”.

Subsec. (j). Puspan. L. 113–182, § 2(2), substituted “2015 through 2019” for “2009 through 2014”.

2013—Subsec. (a)(6). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1006, struck out par. (6) which read as follows: “To implement a DNA arrestee collection process consistent with sections 14137 to 14137c of this title.” See Termination Date of 2013 Amendment note below.

Puspan. L. 112–253 added par. (6).

Subsec. (a)(7), (8). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1002(1), added pars. (7) and (8).

Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1004(a), substituted “2018” for “2014”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(C). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1004(span), added subpar. (C).

Subsec. (c)(4). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1002(2), added par. (4).

Subsec. (n).Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1006, struck out subsec. (n) which related to use of funds for auditing sexual assault evidence backlogs. See Termination Date of 2013 Amendment note below.

Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1002(3), added subsec. (n).

Subsec. (o). Puspan. L. 113–4, § 1002(3), added subsec. (o).

2008—Subsec. (c)(3). Puspan. L. 110–360, § 2(1)(B), which directed redesignation of subpar. (E) and subpar. (A), was executed by redesignating subpar. (E) as (A), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Puspan. L. 110–360, § 2(1)(A), struck out subpar. (A) which read as follows: “For fiscal year 2005, not less than 50 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2) of this section.”

Subsec. (c)(3)(B) to (D). Puspan. L. 110–360, § 2(1)(A), (C), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpars. (B) to (D) which read as follows:

“(B) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 50 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2) of this section.

“(C) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 45 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2) of this section.

“(D) For fiscal year 2008, not less than 40 percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2) of this section.”

Subsec. (j). Puspan. L. 110–360, § 2(2), amended subsec. (j) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (j) authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) $151,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

2006—Subsec. (a)(1). Puspan. L. 109–162 substituted “collected under applicable legal authority” for “taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying State offense (as determined under subsection (span)(3) of this section)”.

2004—Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(1), substituted “The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program” for “Authorization of grants” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(A), in introductory provisions, inserted “or units of local government” after “eligible States” and “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(B), inserted “, including samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified suspect” before period at end.

Subsec. (a)(3). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(C), (span)(1)(A), struck out “within the State” after “local government” and inserted “(1) or” before “(2)”.

Subsec. (a)(4), (5). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(1)(B), added pars. (4) and (5).

Subsec. (span). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(A), in introductory provisions, inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in two places and “, as required by the Attorney General” after “application shall”.

Subsec. (span)(1). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(B), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (span)(3). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(C), inserted “or unit of local government” after “that the State”.

Subsec. (span)(4). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(D), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” and struck out “and” at end.

Subsec. (span)(5). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(E), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” and substituted semicolon for period at end.

Subsec. (span)(6). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(F), added par. (6).

Subsec. (span)(7). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(2), added par. (7).

Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(3), amended span and text of subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A State that proposes to allocate grant amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (span) 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.”

Subsec. (d)(1). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(4)(A), substituted “A plan pursuant to subsection (span)(1)” for “The plan” in introductory provisions and struck out “within the State” after “local government” in subpars. (A) and (B).

Subsec. (d)(2)(A). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(4)(B), inserted “and units of local government” after “States”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 206, amended span and text of par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “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.”

Subsec. (e)(1). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(5)(A), inserted “or local government” after “State” in two places.

Subsec. (e)(2). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(5)(B), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (f). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(6), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (g)(1). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(7)(A), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (g)(2). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(7)(B), inserted “or units of local government” after “States”.

Subsec. (g)(3). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(4), added par. (3).

Subsec. (h). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(8), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in pars. (1) and (2).

Subsec. (j)(1) to (5). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(5), substituted pars. (1) to (5) for former pars. (1) and (2) which read 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.”

Subsec. (k) to (m). Puspan. L. 108–405, § 202(span)(6), added subsecs. (k) to (m).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Termination Date of 2013 Amendment

Puspan. L. 113–4, title X, § 1006, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 134, as amended by Puspan. L. 115–107, § 3(span), Jan. 8, 2018, 131 Stat. 2266, provided that: “Effective on December 31, 2023, subsections (a)(6) and (n) of section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(a)(6) and (n)) [now 34 U.S.C. 40701(a)(6), (n)] are repealed.”

Reports to Congress

Puspan. L. 113–4, title X, § 1003, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 131, provided that: “Not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year for which a grant is made for the purpose described in section 2(a)(7) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 [34 U.S.C. 40701(a)(7)], as amended by section 1002, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report that—

“(1) 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;

“(2) 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

“(3) 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

Puspan. L. 113–4, title X, § 1005, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 132, provided that: “All grants awarded by the Department of Justice that are authorized under this title [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 10101 of this title] shall be subject to the following:

“(1)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.

“(2)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).

“(3)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.

“(4)Reimbursement.—If an entity is awarded grant funds under this Act [Puspan. 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—

“(A) deposit an amount equal to the grant funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the General Fund of the Treasury; and

“(B) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant funds.

“(5)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.

“(6)Nonprofit organization requirements.—

“(A)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.

“(B)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)].

“(C)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.

“(7)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.

“(8)Conference expenditures.—

“(A)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.

“(B)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.

“(C)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.

“(9)Prohibition on lobbying activity.—

“(A)In general.—Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this title may not be utilized by any grant recipient to—

“(i) lobby any representative of the Department of Justice regarding the award of grant funding; or

“(ii) lobby any representative of a Federal, state, local, or tribal government regarding the award of grant funding.

“(B)Penalty.—If the Attorney General determines that any recipient of a grant under this title has violated subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall—

“(i) require the grant recipient to repay the grant in full; and

“(ii) 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

Puspan. 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.

“(span)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.”

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