DNA Backlog Reduction: Preventable Crimes

Example from Idaho

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.

ONE PREVENTABLE DEATH

In September of 2002, a woman was kidnapped, raped and murdered. DNA collected from the crime scene was entered into CODIS, but no offender was identified. In March of 2003 another woman was raped and murdered, and the DNA database linked that crime to the 2002 unsolved murder case. The man who was a suspect in the 2003 murder case was arrested and confessed to the crime. Further DNA testing reconfirmed that the man had in fact committed both murders.

Preventable Crime: The murder suspect had been convicted on felony burglary charges in 1991. If the state had required DNA for this conviction, one death could have been prevented.

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.