Kirk Bloodsworth (Photo: Loren Santow)

The Justice for All Act of 2004, Public Law No: 108 – 405, became law on October 30, 2004, and affects the death penal­ty by cre­at­ing a DNA test­ing pro­gram and autho­riz­ing grants to states for cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tion and cap­i­tal defense improve­ment. Specifically, the act:

  • Provides rules and pro­ce­dures for fed­er­al inmates apply­ing for DNA testing.
  • Creates the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program and autho­rizes $25 mil­lion over five years to help states pay the cost of post-con­vic­tion DNA test­ing (Kirk Bloodsworth was the first death row inmate to be exon­er­at­ed by DNA testing).
  • Authorizes grants to states for cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tion and cap­i­tal defense improve­ment that can be used to train, over­see, and improve the qual­i­ty of death penal­ty tri­als, as well as assist fam­i­lies of murder victims.

Innocence Protection Act of 2004

Title IV of the Justice for All Act, enti­tled the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, includes these three sub­ti­tles that affect the death penalty:

  • Subtitle A – Exonerating the inno­cent through DNA testing
  • Subtitle B – Improving the qual­i­ty of rep­re­sen­ta­tion in State capital cases
  • Subtitle C – Compensation for the wrongfully convicted.
  • Other Provisions
  • More Information

Subtitle A – Exonerating The Innocent Through DNA Testing

This pro­vi­sion pro­vides rules and pro­ce­dures for fed­er­al inmates under a sen­tence of impris­on­ment or a sen­tence of death apply­ing for DNA test­ing. It requires that:

  • The appli­cant must assert under penal­ty of per­jury that he or she is ​“actu­al­ly inno­cent” of either the fed­er­al offense for which the appli­cant is impris­oned or on death row; or,
  • In death penal­ty cas­es, that he or she is ​“actu­al­ly inno­cent” of anoth­er fed­er­al or state offense if exon­er­a­tion of the offense would enti­tle the appli­cant to a reduced sen­tence or a new sentencing hearing;
  • The spe­cif­ic evi­dence to be test­ed must not have been pre­vi­ous­ly test­ed, except that test­ing using a new­er and more reli­able method of test­ing may be requested;
  • The pro­posed DNA test­ing may pro­duce new evi­dence rais­ing a rea­son­able prob­a­bil­i­ty that the appli­cant did not com­mit the offense; 
  • The appli­cant must pro­vide a cur­rent DNA sam­ple for pur­pos­es of com­par­i­son with existing evidence.
  • The appli­cant has 5 years after enact­ment of this pro­vi­sion or 3 years after con­vic­tion, whichev­er comes lat­er, to apply for DNA test­ing. After that time, an inmate’s appli­ca­tion for test­ing will not be con­sid­ered unless he or she can show a good rea­son for fail­ing to apply ear­li­er. The court may appoint coun­sel for an indigent applicant.

In cap­i­tal cas­es, test­ing must be com­plet­ed with­in 60 days after the gov­ern­ment responds to the application.

Not lat­er than 120 days after test­ing is com­plete, the court shall act, depend­ing on the results. In cas­es in which the results are incon­clu­sive, the court may deny relief or order further testing.

In cas­es in which the test­ing has ​“incul­pa­to­ry results” (e. g., test­ing shows the appli­cant was a source of the DNA), the court may con­sid­er whether the asser­tion of inno­cence was false, and hold the appli­cant in con­tempt. If the appli­cant is con­vict­ed for false asser­tions made while apply­ing for DNA test­ing, he or she will be sen­tenced to three years imprisonment.

If the DNA results exclude the appli­cant as a source of the DNA evi­dence, the appli­cant may file a motion for a new tri­al, which shall be grant­ed when the test results, con­sid­ered with all oth­er evi­dence in the case, estab­lish by com­pelling evi­dence that a new tri­al would result in an acquit­tal. Further, the appli­cant may file a motion for a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing if evi­dence of an offense was admit­ted dur­ing a fed­er­al death sen­tenc­ing hear­ing and exon­er­a­tion of that offense would enti­tle the appli­cant to a reduced sen­tence or new sentencing proceeding.

If a defen­dant is impris­oned for the offense, this sub­ti­tle also pro­hibits the gov­ern­ment from destroy­ing bio­log­i­cal evi­dence that was secured in the inves­ti­ga­tion or pros­e­cu­tion of a fed­er­al offense unless the defen­dant did not file a motion for test­ing after being noti­fied that the evi­dence may be destroyed, a court denied a motion for test­ing, or the evi­dence has already been test­ed and showed the defen­dant as a source of the DNA.

Further, it estab­lish­es the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program that autho­rizes $5 mil­lion a year in grants through 2009 to help states pay for post-con­vic­tion DNA testing.

Annual funds appro­pri­at­ed under the Kirk Bloodsworth Grant Program and oth­er DNA test­ing pro­vi­sions of the act will be held in reserve for dis­tri­b­u­tion to eli­gi­ble states and enti­ties to defray costs asso­ci­at­ed with con­sid­er­ing claims of inno­cence. For exam­ple, states that adopt rea­son­able pro­ce­dures for DNA test­ing and the preser­va­tion of DNA evi­dence, in a man­ner com­pa­ra­ble to the fed­er­al pro­ce­dures out­lined above, are eli­gi­ble for such grants.

Subtitle B – Improving The Quality of Representation In State Capital Cases

This pro­vi­sion autho­rizes a grant pro­gram, to be admin­is­tered by the United States Attorney General, to improve the qual­i­ty of pros­e­cu­tion and defense rep­re­sen­ta­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es. The grants may not be used to pay for lawyers in spe­cif­ic cas­es, but instead are to be used to estab­lish, imple­ment, or improve an effec­tive sys­tem for pro­vid­ing com­pe­tent legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion to indi­gents charged with cap­i­tal offens­es or sen­tenced to death and seek­ing appel­late review in state court.

The statute defines an ​“effec­tive sys­tem” as one in which the respon­si­bil­i­ty for appoint­ing qual­i­fied attor­neys to rep­re­sent indi­gents in cap­i­tal cas­es is invested in:

  • a pub­lic defend­er pro­gram that relies on staff attor­neys, mem­bers of the pri­vate bar, or both, to pro­vide rep­re­sen­ta­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es; or
  • an enti­ty estab­lished by statute or the high­est state court, com­posed of indi­vid­u­als with demon­strat­ed knowl­edge and exper­tise in cap­i­tal cas­es; or
  • a sys­tem in which a tri­al judge appoints qual­i­fied attor­neys from a ros­ter main­tained by a state or region­al selec­tion com­mit­tee pur­suant to a state statu­to­ry pro­ce­dure exist­ing before enact­ment of this Act.

An ​“effec­tive sys­tem” must:

  • estab­lish qual­i­fi­ca­tions for defense attor­neys in capital cases;
  • main­tain a ros­ter of qual­i­fied attor­neys to rep­re­sent capital defendants;
  • assign 2 attor­neys in capital cases;
  • train and mon­i­tor the per­for­mance of cap­i­tal defense attor­neys; and
  • ensure fund­ing of com­pe­tent legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion by the defense team and outside experts.
  • The pro­gram pro­vides equal funds to:
  • design and imple­ment train­ing pro­grams for capital prosecutors;
  • devel­op and enforce stan­dards and qual­i­fi­ca­tions for prosecutors; 
  • estab­lish pro­grams for pros­e­cu­tors to review cap­i­tal cas­es in order to iden­ti­fy cas­es in which post-con­vic­tion DNA test­ing is appro­pri­ate; and 
  • pro­vide sup­port and assis­tance to the fam­i­lies of murder victims.

A state desir­ing a grant must sub­mit an appli­ca­tion to the United States Attorney General describ­ing the exist­ing cap­i­tal defend­er ser­vices and cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tion pro­grams. The appli­ca­tion must set out a long-term statewide strat­e­gy with a detailed imple­men­ta­tion plan. The strat­e­gy must reflect con­sul­ta­tion with the judi­cia­ry, the orga­nized bar, and state and local pros­e­cu­tor and defend­er orga­ni­za­tions and must estab­lish as a pri­or­i­ty an improve­ment in the qual­i­ty of tri­al-lev­el rep­re­sen­ta­tion in capital cases.

For the Capital Representation Grants, $75 mil­lion a year is autho­rized for five years, and states receiv­ing funds must allo­cate them equal­ly between pros­e­cu­tion and defense, sub­mit reports to the Attorney General, and be eval­u­at­ed for com­pli­ance with the terms and con­di­tions of the grant.

Subtitle C – Compensation Of the Wrongfully Convicted

This pro­vi­sion increas­es the max­i­mum amount of mon­ey that the United States may be required to pay in fed­er­al cas­es of unjust impris­on­ment from a flat $5,000 to $50,000 per year of impris­on­ment in a non-cap­i­tal case, and $100,000 per year of incar­cer­a­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es.

This sub­ti­tle also sets forth the ​“Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State Death Penalty Cases”: that states should pro­vide rea­son­able com­pen­sa­tion to any per­son found to have been unjust­ly con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death. However, it does not require states to do so.

Other Provisions

In addi­tion to the pro­vi­sions affect­ing death penal­ty cas­es, the Justice For All Act:

  • Enacts the Debbie Smith Backlog Grant Program, pro­vid­ing $755 mil­lion to reduce the back­log of crime scene evi­dence await­ing analy­sis in our nation’s crime labs;
  • Enacts the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act, autho­riz­ing more than $500 mil­lion for pro­grams to improve the capac­i­ty of crime labs to con­duct DNA analy­sis, reduce non-DNA back­logs, train exam­in­ers, sup­port sex­u­al assault foren­sic exam­in­er pro­grams, and pro­mote the use of DNA to iden­ti­fy missing persons.

For more information, see:

Full Text of United States Public Law 108 – 405 (Formerly HR 5107