DNA Backlog Reduction: Preventable Crimes

Examples from Alaska

DNA technology is evolving rapidly and many states are considering whether to expand DNA databases or invest in DNA casework investigations. In order to inform the discussion of these issues, NIJ commissioned an independent study to ascertain the size of and reasons for the nation's backlog of DNA evidence. The resulting report included the list of cases presented here. This list of cases is not exhaustive, does not identify the perpetrator or victim, and is not a reflection on the criminal justice agencies involved. These cases would remain unsolved if not for extraordinary detective work by dedicated criminal justice professionals in these agencies.

Case studies presented on this site are from an NIJ-funded independent study. Points of view or opinions in the resulting report are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

FOUR PREVENTABLE RAPES

Between January of 2000 and January of 2001, an unidentified perpetrator raped five women in the area of Anchorage. All five rapes were all linked to the same unknown offender through DNA analysis.

Police identified a suspect after the January 2001 rape, and that individual has since been convicted of all five attacks.

Preventable Crime: The suspect in question had a long criminal history of felony charges which resulted in misdemeanor convictions. Felony charges levied against him included burglary with sexual intent, and his misdemeanor convictions ranged from criminal trespass to forgery. If this individual had been required to supply a DNA sample from a 1995 felony burglary charge that was reduced to a criminal trespass conviction, he could have been identified after the first rape in January 2000, thereby preventing the following four rapes.

ONE PREVENTABLE RAPE

In 2000 in Anchorage, a woman was raped by a stranger and a DNA sample from the crime was entered into the state DNA database. No DNA hit was made, and the crime remained unsolved.

In 2001, another woman was raped in the remote village of Kotzebue on the Seward Peninsula—an area primarily accessible only by airplane. In this case, authorities identified the suspected perpetrator and he was convicted of sexual assault. Upon his conviction, a DNA sample was collected for the DNA database, and was matched in June of 2002 to the 2000 Anchorage rape.

Preventable Crime: A review of the offender's criminal history shows at least nine prior convictions for a variety of crimes ranging from criminal trespass to felony burglary. Several of the convictions also carried sexual assault charges which were dismissed. In 2000, Alaska expanded the DNA database to include burglars, but did not make the provision retroactive to include prior convictions for those still serving probation or on parole. If the state had required DNA from this group of offenders, the DNA database would have matched the offender to the 2000 rape, thereby preventing the rape in 2001.

ONE PREVENTABLE PROPERTY CRIME

In 1993, a murder was committed in Kodiak, but with no suspect the case remained unsolved. In recent years, the case was reopened and a cigarette butt collected from the crime scene was tested for DNA. A DNA profile was extracted, and it matched up with a felon on the database for a 1996 felony armed robbery.

However, before this murder identification was made, the offender remained criminally active in the community and was arrested and convicted of another theft in 2002.

Preventable Crime: With proactive policies to review cold cases for possible DNA evidence, the offender's DNA sample could have been matched to the 1993 murder prior to the 2002 theft—thereby preventing at least one property crime.

NIJ Funded Study

The cases are from National Forensic DNA Study Report and were developed using basic assumptions. For a full discussion on the review methodology that led to the conclusions presented here, see Section VI. "Forensic DNA and Crime Prevention." The report and case studies were prepared by Smith Alling Lane in partnership with Washington State University through the support of a grant awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Grant 2002-LT-BX-K 003). Points of view or opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.