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, SEVERAL PREVENTABLE PROPERTY CRIMES
In May of 2000, an elderly woman was brutally raped while on her way to vote in an election. Ten days later a suspect, who had not been identified as the woman's rapist, was charged and subsequently convicted of felonious receiving of stolen property and trespass. Upon his release, he was remanded to another jurisdiction where he was wanted on felony theft charges. The suspect was released from this county correctional facility in May of 2001, and the next day an elderly woman was found raped and murdered. Tracking dogs lead police to an area where the suspect's mother lived, and within a few days the suspect was arrested for the murder. Subsequent DNA testing linked both the 2001 murder and the 2000 rape to the suspect in question.
Preventable Crime: In 1998, the perpetrator of these crimes was convicted on felony charges of receiving stolen property, and he was again convicted on a similar charge while still under confinement in prison. From 1999 through 2000, he was charged or arrested on four separate occasions for felony theft by receiving, one of which resulted in a misdemeanor conviction and the last one brought the felony conviction in May of 2001. If the offender in question had been required to give a DNA sample upon the 1998 felony conviction, the 2000 rape could have been solved, and the rape and murder of an elderly woman, and several property crimes could have been prevented.
TWO PREVENTABLE SEXUAL ASSAULTS
In October of 2001, a woman was raped by an unknown assailant who broke into her home; a rape kit was collected for analysis in this case. In July of 2002, another woman was raped and burglarized, and another rape kit was collected for forensic analysis. Then once more in August of 2002 a third woman was burglarized and sexually battered. All three violent assaults took place in the Indianapolis area.
Use of the Indiana state DNA database eventually led to the matching of the rape that occurred in October of 2001 to the rape of July 2002. In addition, a match was also made to a DNA sample obtained from a suspect. Upon questioning by detectives, the suspect in question incriminated himself in a third sexual assault which had taken place in August of 2002.
Preventable Crime: The perpetrator in this set of cases received a 20-year sentence for his second rape conviction in December 1986, and was released from prison on parole in October 1995. However, the Indiana DNA database did not become effective until July 1996, and upon going into effect it did not require DNA samples from qualifying offenders who were still serving community sentences of probation or parole. Had the Indiana statute on DNA evidence collection included a provision to collect DNA from persons still serving community sentences, at least two sexual assaults 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.
