DNA Backlog Reduction: Preventable Crimes

Example from North Carolina

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.

TWO PREVENTABLE RAPES

A series of three undetected rapes occurred in the Charlotte County area—one in February of 2000, and two more in May of 2002.

Police identified a suspect after the first attack in May, and positively identified the perpetrator through fingerprints found at the scene. Subsequent DNA testing also linked all three rapes to the suspect.

Preventable Crime: The offender was convicted in December of 2000 on felony breaking and entering and larceny charges. However, the North Carolina DNA database statute did not include either felony crime as a qualifying offense for the DNA database. If the suspect had been required to give a DNA sample for his December 2000 conviction, he could have been connected to the February 2000 rape, thereby possibly preventing two rapes in May of 2002.

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.