Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from Arizona and their arguments in opposition to the bill, I think, are really…”

“Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from Arizona and their arguments in opposition to the bill, I think, are really misdirected. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said that the system of federalism in terms of State public defenders is abused by this bill, and this really is not the case at all. One of the reasons capital convictions end up being overturned has been that there has not been adequate counsel. This bill provides money to make sure that there is adequate counsel, not just on the defense side, but on the prosecution side as well, because States that use a public defender system to provide a defense in capital cases are eligible under this bill for both prosecution and defense frames. The other gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) argues that the low standard for requiring new trials would allow criminals to go free. The bill does set appropriate standards for postconviction testing and new trials, but a judge must find that there is reasonable probability that the defendant did not actually commit the offense in order to even order a DNA test; and the preponderance of evidence standard would kick in once the court has ordered the test, and the test is either not inculpatory or is inconclusive. The court would then take the DNA test into account with all other evidence in deciding whether or not to order a new trial. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill.”