DNA Backlog Reduction: Preventable Crimes

Example from Kentucky

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.

SEVEN PREVENTABLE RAPES

In October 1998 a female attendant at a gas station was raped. In this case, DNA was collected but was not tested. Approximately ten days later, another female gas station attendant was raped, and over the next three years an additional seven rapes were committed by the same repeat offender.

Investigators identified a suspect in the last rape in August of 2002 after he used the victim's ATM card. In 2003, DNA testing finally linked the man to the first two rapes in 1998, and other evidence linked the remaining cases to one another.

Preventable Crime: The suspect was a known sex offender in Kentucky who had committed twelve documented rapes as a juvenile. His first rape committed as an adult occurred within a month of his release from juvenile detention facilities. Unfortunately, the State of Kentucky did not require DNA from juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent of sex crimes at the time of the suspect's juvenile sentences. If the state had required DNA from juveniles adjudicated delinquent of felonies, at least seven rapes could have been prevented. Moreover, in 2002, the requirement was not made retroactive to encompass persons on probation or parole. Had it not been for good police work, this rapist could still be a threat to public safety today.

FIVE PREVENTABLE RAPES

From June of 1997 through October of 2000 six rapes and several attempted rapes took place in the Louisville area. In addition to DNA evidence that linked these rapes to one another, the rapist frequently used a flashlight to blind his victims -- thus earning the nickname of the "Flashlight Rapist."

In November of 2000 a suspect was arrested and subsequently convicted on numerous burglary charges in Louisville. A sex crime detective began to suspect the man as the Flashlight Rapist and obtained a warrant for a DNA sample. The DNA analysis positively identified the man as the Flashlight Rapist, and he later pleaded guilty to the crimes.

Preventable Crime: The flashlight rapist had been previously convicted on felonious burglary charges in 1991 in Florida, which did not yet require DNA from all convicted felons. Had DNA been required, at least 5 rapes could have been prevented. Moreover, although Kentucky altered its law to require DNA for burglary convictions in 2002, the provision was not made retroactive to include probationers or parolees and the implementation date of the law was delayed. Thus the 2000 burglary conviction in Kentucky may also have "slipped through the cracks" and allowed the crimes to remain unsolved if not for good detective work.

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.