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.
TWO PREVENTABLE SEXUAL ASSAULTS
In 1995, an unknown perpetrator raped a woman in Ohio. DNA was collected during the investigation, but was not submitted for testing.
In 1999, a woman was sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant at a hotel in Nebraska. DNA evidence was collected from this crime scene. Later the same day in Colorado, a woman was sexually assaulted by a man who had answered an advertisement in the newspaper for furniture that she was selling. DNA was collected from this crime scene as well.
Using an electronic bulletin board that serves a nine-state area in the Midwest, a Nebraska police detective posted a digitized photo of the suspect in the Nebraska hotel attack. Within 30 days police in Iowa identified the person in the photo as a known offender resident in their area. The man in question was arrested and subsequent DNA testing linked him to both 1999 attacks. Subsequently, an Ohio police detective noticed similarities to the 1995 attack, and the DNA from that crime was submitted for testing and was found to match that of the offender.
Preventable Crime: The offender's extensive criminal history dates back to a 1979 felony burglary conviction, and included two separate burglary convictions in Iowa in 1989 (for which he was sentenced to a maximum of 25 years) plus a 1993 misdemeanor indecent exposure conviction and several acquittals on sexual assault. If Iowa had required DNA prior to releasing the offender for the 1989 felony burglary charge, and if the DNA evidence in the Ohio case had been submitted and analyzed in a more timely manner, at least two sexual assaults in Nebraska could have been prevented.
This case is an excellent example of the importance of each state's DNA program to solving and preventing crimes in other states. It is also worth noting that Iowa expanded its offender DNA database to include all convicted felons in 2002, but Nebraska still does not require DNA from felony burglary charges.
THREE PREVENTABLE RAPES
In July of 2000, a woman was raped in her home after answering a knock at her door, but no DNA was collected. Between September of 2001 and September of 2002, four more rapes were committed by a perpetrator using the same modus operandi—but in these cases DNA was collected and linked to the same unidentified perpetrator.
Acting on a tip, police tracked down a suspect in November of 2002 and the man was subsequently convicted on all four rape cases for which DNA was collected. He is eligible for parole in 140 years.
Preventable Crime: The rapist in question had several convictions for misdemeanor thefts from 1996 through 1998. Moreover, he was convicted as a juvenile on felony theft charges in 1996. If a DNA sample had been required for the felony theft adjudication, at least three rapes 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.
