PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7511-7515)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 27, 2010
Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010 - Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) include as a victim's right the right to be informed of rights and to be provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (2) expand eligibility for post-conviction DNA testing in criminal proceedings other than death penalty cases.
Amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to revise the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program to: (1) require the development of protocols and practices for the accurate, timely, and effective collection and processing of DNA evidence and require states and local governments to adopt such protocols and practices; (2) expand the authority of the Attorney General to make grants for the collection, processing, testing, and analysis of DNA evidence; (3) allow the use of grant funds to alleviate a backlog of cases with respect to a forensic science other than DNA analysis; (4) impose penalties on states and local governments for noncompliance with Program requirements; and (5) extend funding for the Program through FY2015.
Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to: (1) require government entities to coordinate with regional health care providers to notify sexual assault victims of the availability of free rape exams; and (2) authorize increased appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Justice for All Act of 2004 to: (1) authorize increased appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for crime victims legal assistance grants; (2) authorize appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for DNA research and development, DNA programs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DNA identification of missing persons and human remains, and the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program; (3) authorize appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for legal representation of indigent criminal defendants in state capital cases; (4) authorize appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for incentive grants to states to ensure consideration of claims of actual innocence in criminal cases; and (5) require the Director of the National Institute of Justice to establish best practices for evidence retention and to assist state, local, and tribal governments in adopting and implementing such practices.
Effective Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2010 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require grant applicants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to include in grant applications a comprehensive statewide plan for the improvement of the administration of the criminal justice system. Makes it unlawful for government entities or their agents to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives indigent defendants of their constitutional rights to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7511-7515)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7510-7511)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3842 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3842 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3842 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3842 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.