18 USC 3600 – DNA testing
(a)
(1) The applicant asserts, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is actually innocent of—
(A) the Federal offense for which the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment or death; or
(B) another Federal or State offense, if—
(i) evidence of such offense was admitted during a Federal sentencing hearing and exoneration of such offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or new sentencing hearing; and
(ii) in the case of a State offense—
(I) the applicant demonstrates that there is no adequate remedy under State law to permit DNA testing of the specified evidence relating to the State offense; and
(II) to the extent available, the applicant has exhausted all remedies available under State law for requesting DNA testing of specified evidence relating to the State offense.
(2) The specific evidence to be tested was secured in relation to the investigation or prosecution of the Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant’s assertion under paragraph (1).
(3) The specific evidence to be tested—
(A) was not previously subjected to DNA testing and the applicant did not knowingly fail to request DNA testing of that evidence in a prior motion for postconviction DNA testing; or
(B) was previously subjected to DNA testing and the applicant is requesting DNA testing using a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior DNA testing.
(4) The specific evidence to be tested is in the possession of the Government and has been subject to a chain of custody and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure that such evidence has not been substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any respect material to the proposed DNA testing.
(5) The proposed DNA testing is reasonable in scope, uses scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted forensic practices.
(6) The applicant identifies a theory of defense that—
(A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense presented at trial; and
(B) would establish the actual innocence of the applicant of the Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant’s assertion under paragraph (1).
(7) If the applicant was convicted following a trial, the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the trial.
(8) The proposed DNA testing of the specific evidence may produce new material evidence that would—
(A) support the theory of defense referenced in paragraph (6); and
(B) raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit the offense.
(9) The applicant certifies that the applicant will provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison.
(10) The motion is made in a timely fashion, subject to the following conditions:
(A) There shall be a rebuttable presumption of timeliness if the motion is made within 60 months of enactment of the Justice For All Act of 2004 or within 36 months of conviction, whichever comes later. Such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing—
(i) that the applicant’s motion for a DNA test is based solely upon information used in a previously denied motion; or
(ii) of clear and convincing evidence that the applicant’s filing is done solely to cause delay or harass.
(B) There shall be a rebuttable presumption against timeliness for any motion not satisfying subparagraph (A) above. Such presumption may be rebutted upon the court’s finding—
(i) that the applicant was or is incompetent and such incompetence substantially contributed to the delay in the applicant’s motion for a DNA test;
(ii) the evidence to be tested is newly discovered DNA evidence;
(iii) that the applicant’s motion is not based solely upon the applicant’s own assertion of innocence and, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the motion, a denial would result in a manifest injustice; or
(iv) upon good cause shown.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term “incompetence” has the meaning as defined in section 4241 of title 18, United States Code;
(ii) the term “manifest” means that which is unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable and requires that the opposite conclusion be clearly evident.
Terms Used In 18 USC 3600
- Acquittal:
- Judgement that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A verdict of "not guilty."
- agency: includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense. See 18 USC 6
- Conviction: A judgement of guilt against a criminal defendant.
- Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
- Habeas corpus: A writ that is usually used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine the legality of his imprisonment. It may also be used to bring a person in custody before the court to give testimony, or to be prosecuted.
- individual: shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. See 1 USC 8
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Trial: A hearing that takes place when the defendant pleads "not guilty" and witnesses are required to come to court to give evidence.
- United States: as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone. See 18 USC 5
(b)
(1)
(A) notify the Government;
(B) allow the Government a reasonable time period to respond to the motion; and
(C) order the Government to—
(i) prepare an inventory of the evidence related to the case; and
(ii) issue a copy of the inventory to the court, the applicant, and the Government.
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(A) by the applicant; or
(B) in the case of an applicant who is indigent, by the Government.
(d)
(1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall be completed not later than 60 days after the date on which the Government responds to the motion filed under subsection (a); and
(2) not later than 120 days after the date on which the DNA testing ordered under this section is completed, the court shall order any post-testing procedures under subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.
(e)
(1)
(A)
(B)
(i)
(ii)
(2) NDIS.—The Government shall submit any test results relating to the DNA of the applicant to NDIS.
(3)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(A) deny the applicant relief; and
(B) on motion of the Government—
(i) make a determination whether the applicant’s assertion of actual innocence was false, and, if the court makes such a finding, the court may hold the applicant in contempt;
(ii) assess against the applicant the cost of any DNA testing carried out under this section;
(iii) forward the finding to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, who, upon receipt of such a finding, may deny, wholly or in part, the good conduct credit authorized under section 3632 on the basis of that finding;
(iv) if the applicant is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Parole Commission, forward the finding to the Commission so that the Commission may deny parole on the basis of that finding; and
(v) if the DNA test results relate to a State offense, forward the finding to any appropriate State official.
(3)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(A) in the case of a motion for a new trial, the Federal offense for which the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment or death; and
(B) in the case of a motion for resentencing, another Federal or State offense, if evidence of such offense was admitted during a Federal sentencing hearing and exoneration of such offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or a new sentencing proceeding.
(h)
(1)
(2)
(3)