The case studies were developed through the assistance of investigators and prosecutors around the country, and reflect the following assumptions:

• State statutes requiring DNA from all convicted felons were feasible by 1990. This assumption is based on the fact that Virginia enacted such a law in 1990.
• In addition to all felony offenses, state databases could include misdemeanor convictions that arose out of felony charges. Several states currently have such requirements due to the number of felony offenders who plea to misdemeanor crimes.
• A 30-day turn-around time is both desirable and possible, given sufficient resources. In fact, laboratories will often expedite testing and can finish analysis in a week or less if the crime(s) warrant priority treatment.
  

When reviewing the cases presented below, the reader should bear in mind the following points:

• Backlogs at crime laboratories are primarily the result of growing demand and limited resources. “Preventable crimes” that may in part be due to backlogs at crime laboratories,should be considered as a byproduct of resource limitations. In fact, crime laboratory analysts often work overtime and weekends to complete analysis on high profile cases.
• Law enforcement and prosecutors should not be expected to be able to identify offenders of unsolved crimes when they have not been given access to the necessary tools, such as DNA. These case studies should not be read to point blame at criminal justice professionals who did not immediately detect the offender’s involvement in additional crimes. Indeed, many of these cases would still be unsolved if not for other extraordinary detective work.

These assumptions and case studies are from the National Forensic DNA Study Report, 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.