Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On “The Adequacy Of Representation In Capital Cases”
April 8, 2008
I thank Senator Feingold and the Subcommittee on the Constitution for
holding this hearing on such an important issue for the Committee and
for the country. Senator Feingold has worked for many years with me and
others to try to ensure that our criminal justice system reflects the
fairness and protections that our Founders intended.
In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act , which aimed to
improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the
most serious cases have access to counsel and, where appropriate, access
to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in
those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. That legislation
and this Committee have attempted to ensure that our system gets it
right, particularly when the stakes are as high and the results as final
as they are in capital cases. The conviction of innocent defendants is
a tragedy that our system of criminal justice is designed to prevent.
With it comes the corresponding criminal justice nightmare that the
actual wrongdoer remains undiscovered, and possibly at large, committing
additional crimes.
It took hard work and time, but in 2004, Congress passed the Innocence
Protection Act as an important part of the Justice for All Act.
Congress recognized the need for important changes in criminal justice
procedure and forensics despite resistance from the current
administration. It was an unprecedented, bipartisan piece of criminal
justice reform legislation intended to ensure that law enforcement has
all the tools it needs to find and convict those who commit serious
crimes, but also that innocent people have the means to establish and
prove their innocence. It was the most significant step Congress had
taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country
and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American
justice system.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, more than 120
innocent people have now been freed from death row – a truly alarming
number. And it is in everyone’s interest for the guilty parties to be
found and punished. Addressing those imperatives was the purpose of the
Justice for All Act. Now, more than three years later, this Committee
is working to make sure that the letter and the spirit of that law are
being followed, and that our justice system is working as it should.
In January, this Committee held its first hearing of the year to look at
key parts of the Justice for All Act, including the Kirk Bloodsworth
Post Conviction DNA Testing grant program. That program was intended to
provide grants for states to conduct DNA tests in cases in which someone
has already been convicted – but key DNA evidence was not tested.
Exactly that kind of evidence exonerated Kirk Bloodsworth, who was
a young man just out of the Marines when he
was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that
he did not commit. I was troubled to find then that more than
three years after the passage of the Act, with Congress having
appropriated almost $14 million to the Bloodsworth program, not a dime
has been released to the states for this worthy purpose.
That hearing in January and our oversight appears to be having an
effect. The day before that hearing, the Department of Justice issued a
new solicitation for states to apply for Bloodsworth grants. We
understand that more states have applied for the grants than in the
past, and Department officials assure us that they are working hard to
see that money is given out and that the Act’s statutory requirements
are interpreted in a meaningful way so that states will preserve
important evidence, but not in such an extreme way as to exclude every
state from qualifying for the program. I have been heartened by the
positive steps the Department has taken on the Bloodsworth program, but
I will be watching closely to make sure that the Department follows
through on the promise of these good first steps.
I hope the Department will also work to correct an important problem
with the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program,
which also came out in that January hearing. The Department must make
sure that states have an independent check in cases of lab misconduct to
maintain the integrity of the important forensic work funded by that key
program.
Today, Senator Feingold is leading the way in following up on a
different and equally important aspect of the same issue. If we
sanction the use of a penalty as final as capital punishment, we must be
sure that the system is working properly. The catastrophe of executing
an innocent person is not one that we can ever tolerate. Unfortunately,
the number of innocent people freed from death row to date illustrates
that this is not an idle concern.
The best way to ensure that justice is done is to have exceptional
counsel on both sides of these cases. As a prosecutor, I always knew
that it was better to have good opposing counsel. With properly trained
attorneys and appropriate resources on all sides, we can have much more
confidence in our system of justice. Unfortunately, our track record on
representation of capital defendants has not been good.
Despite some important first steps in the Innocence Protection Act, I
fear that our system of representation in capital cases is still far
from adequate. We need a clear-eyed assessment of the current
situation, and I thank Senator Feingold for taking on this important
issue.
# # # # #