Sec. 201. Findings and declarations
1,028 words·~5 min read·
/bill/114/hr/2944/ih/section-201A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The Congress finds and declares the following: The goal of a law enforcement investigation is to apprehend the person or persons responsible for the commission of a crime. Mistaken eyewitness identification has been shown to have contributed to the wrongful conviction in 72 percent of the Nation’s 325 exonerations of innocent persons, including 20 who served time on death row and 30 who pled guilty. These innocents served an average of 13.5 years in prison before exoneration and release.
No one benefits from a wrongful conviction—except the real perpetrator, who remains free to commit additional crimes. In half of the exoneration cases, the same DNA used to exonerate the innocent was used to identify the real perpetrator. Over 141 violent crimes could have been prevented had the real perpetrator been identified instead of the innocent. Over the past 30 years, a large body of peer-reviewed, scientific research and practice has emerged showing that simple systemic changes can protect the innocent and the public by increasing the accuracy of the evidence used to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
These reforms are— improving the accuracy of eyewitness identification; preserving and analyzing forensic evidence; recording confessions and interrogations; discounting the inherent unreliability of informant or cooperator testimony; improving the quality of defense counsel; providing for postconviction DNA testing; and increasing compensation to the wrongfully convicted. Policies and procedures to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications such as those recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, the United States National Institute of Justice, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Bar Association, the Michigan Bar Association, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, the Wisconsin Office of the Attorney General, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, and the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission are readily available.
More accurate eyewitness identifications increase the ability of police and prosecutors to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. The integrity of the criminal justice process is enhanced by adherence to best practices in evidence gathering. Federal, State, and local governments will benefit from the improvement of the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. The value of properly preserved biological evidence has been enhanced by the discovery of modern DNA testing methods, which, coupled with a comprehensive system of DNA databases that store crime scene and offender profiles, allow law enforcement to improve its crime-solving potential.
Tapping the potential of preserved biological evidence requires the proper identification, collection, preservation, storage, cataloguing and organization of such evidence. Law enforcement agencies indicate that cold case investigations are hindered by an inability to access biological evidence that was collected in connection with criminal investigations. Innocent people mistakenly convicted of the serious crimes for which biological evidence is probative cannot prove their innocence if such evidence is not accessible for testing in appropriate circumstances.
It is well established that the failure to update policies regarding the preservation of evidence squanders valuable law enforcement resources, manpower hours and storage space. Simple but crucial enhancements to protocols for properly preserving biological evidence can solve old crimes, enhance public safety and settle claims of innocence. Existing Federal, State, and local law regarding consideration of new evidence postconviction fails to adequately account for the enduring probative value of DNA evidence.
During his 2005 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush urged that, [i]n America, we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit, so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction . United States Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his hope, in the interest of justice and identifying the true perpetrators of crimes, that all levels of government will follow the Federal Government’s lead by working to expand access to DNA evidence .
Emerging DNA testing technologies can enhance the quality of justice. The scientifically reliable results of DNA testing provide the certainty and finality that bolster the public’s trust in our Federal, State, and local criminal justice systems. In addition to the wrongfully convicted and their families, crime victims, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts and the public are harmed whenever individuals guilty of crimes elude justice while innocent individuals are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.
Our Federal, State, and local governments must enhance their procedures for considering post-conviction DNA testing so that all credible claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence can be properly evaluated. Properly audio and video recorded custodial interrogations provide the best evidence of the communications that occurred during an interrogation; prevent disputes about how an officer conducted himself or treated a suspect during the course of an interrogation; prevent disputes about the account of events the defendant originally provided to law enforcement; spare judges and jurors the time necessary and need to assess which account of an interrogation to believe; and enhance public confidence in the criminal process, it is the Congress’ intent to encourage the video and audio recording of all custodial interrogations.
An informant is a person who was not a victim of a crime who offers to provide information or assistance to law enforcement in exchange for leniency or some other benefit. The testimony of informants, who were not at the scene of the crime and who have reason to seek leniency from the criminal justice system, is inherently suspect. However, truthful informant testimony may still be important in solving crimes. Rewarding informants, either tacitly or explicitly, by the Government produces dangerous incentives to manufacture or fabricate testimony.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the judicial system to assess whether informant testimony is reliable. The use of informant testimony without a system to properly assess its reliability or corroborate its substance provides fertile ground for obstruction of the fair administration of justice. Therefore, a system to properly assess the reliability of informant testimony, including, but not limited to audio and video recording of all statements provided by informants, should be developed.
The failure to properly educate law enforcement, defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other fact finders about the vulnerabilities inherent in informant testimony enables improper consideration of such testimony, which can seriously undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system.