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.
UNKNOWN PREVENTABLE CRIMES
In August of 2000 a teenager in Aiken was raped and murdered in her home. There was no suspect in the case, but DNA evidence from the crime was sent to the laboratory for testing and a profile was sent to the national database. Meanwhile, police actively pursued the investigation, conducting between 300 and 400 interviews and collecting 94 DNA samples for comparison.
In August of 2002 an offender's DNA sample was submitted to the Georgia DNA database after he was returned to state prison for violating his parole on a felony theft by taking conviction. When the sample was compared against the national database, it was matched to the South Carolina murder. The person in question had worked for a package delivery service in 2000. During one of his deliveries, the offender met the teenager and later he returned to kill her.
Preventable Crime: The offense which resulted in this offender's inclusion in Georgia's DNA database, and which eventually lead to the closure of the teenager's murder, is a crime that is excluded from the South Carolina database. Had the offender committed his prior crimes in South Carolina instead of Georgia, he would likely still be undetected and living unsuspected in the community. In addition to the theft by taking conviction, the repeat offender in question also had convictions for numerous other crimes. Among those crimes are escape, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, theft of a motor vehicle, and entering a vehicle—none of which are qualifying offenses for the DNA database in the State of South Carolina.
THREE PREVENTABLE RAPES
In September 1995, a woman was raped by a stranger and a rape kit was collected at the scene of the crime and submitted to the crime laboratory. The DNA profile was loaded into the state database system, but no match was made. In July, September and November of 1996 three more women were raped, but no rape kits were collected from these crime scenes. However, all three women identified the same suspect as their attacker through mug shot photographs. Investigators interviewed a suspect at his home and made an arrest in early 1998. A DNA sample was collected from the suspect and was matched to the DNA profile from the first rape. The offender was tried and convicted for rape and burglary, and he was sentenced to life over 30 years in prison.
Preventable Crime: The offender was convicted in 1980 on two separate rape and burglary charges. He completed his sentence in June of 1995. Unfortunately, while the South Carolina database statute was enacted in 1994, it did not contain an emergency clause and therefore it did not come into effect until July of 1995—one month too late to capture this offender's DNA sample. If the South Carolina statute had become effective immediately upon enactment, this offender could have been identified after the first rape, thereby preventing the following three rapes.
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.
