18 U.S.C. § 3600A
Preservation of biological evidence
The date of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, referred to in subsec. (e), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 108–405, which was approved
2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–324, § 11(b)(1), substituted “sentenced to” for “under a sentence of”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–324, § 11(b)(2), redesignated pars. (3) to (5) as (1) to (3), respectively, and struck out former pars. (1) and (2) which read as follows:
“(1) a court has denied a request or motion for DNA testing of the biological evidence by the defendant under section 3600, and no appeal is pending;
“(2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to request DNA testing of the biological evidence in a court proceeding conducted after the date of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004;”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Wilkie v. Robbins
Wilkie v. Robbins (2007)
“2519 , note following 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, arguing that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.”
Hood v. United States (2011)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3600A (b) (2006). The Maryland statute comparably states that " '[b]iological evidence' includes, but is not limited to, any blood, hair, saliva, semen, epithelial cells, buccal cells, or other bodily substances from which genetic marker groupings may be obtained.”
Pena v. United States (2008)
“Although an alternative ground for the magistrate judge’s holding was not necessary, the court concluded that Pena was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file because the chances of the petition succeeding were extremely remote.”
United States v. Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
United States v. Curry (2016)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3600A. The government responded that the evidence already had been destroyed, and the district court denied Curry's motion in the same order that, disposed of his motion to compel release of the DNA case file.”
United States v. William Axsom, II (2014)
“Finally, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e), Axsom was granted funds to retain a computer expert to assist him in his defense.”
Carter v. State of South Dakota (2023)
“Motion to Preserve “Biological Evidence” Carter seeks an order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, requiring Child’s Voice, the South Dakota Department of Health and another other entity to present all “biological evidence[.”
United States v. Terry Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
United States v. Daniel W. Curry (2016)
“The statute provides only for a criminal penalty if a person “knowingly and intentionally destroys, alters, or tampers with biological evidence that is required to be preserved .”
United States v. Brett Kimberlin (2022)
“passage the judge relied upon invokes the similarly numbered 18 U.S.C. § 3600A: Inapplicability following release.”
Donaldson v. MBR Central Ill. Pizza, LLC (2019)
“By way of comparison, the current hourly rate for a lawyer appointed to a non-capitol case under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, is $148 per hour. for Leave to File Document Under Seal, seeking to file the settlement agreement under seal.”
United States v. Osoba (2000)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e)(1) (1999) Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(b)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Terry Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(b)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e) — 1 case
United States v. William Axsom, II (2014)
“Finally, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e), Axsom was granted funds to retain a computer expert to assist him in his defense.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Osoba (2000)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(e)(1) (1999) Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3600A(f) — 4 cases
United States v. Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
United States v. Curry (2016)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3600A. The government responded that the evidence already had been destroyed, and the district court denied Curry's motion in the same order that, disposed of his motion to compel release of the DNA case file.”
United States v. Daniel W. Curry (2016)
“The statute provides only for a criminal penalty if a person “knowingly and intentionally destroys, alters, or tampers with biological evidence that is required to be preserved .”
United States v. Terry Thomas (2015)
“And, indeed, on appeal Thomas appears to have abandoned his § 3600 claim entirely and now asserts that the destruction of the bags violated 18 U.S.C. § 3600A, a separate provision of the Innocence Protection Act that requires preservation of certain “biological evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.