DNA Evidence

DNA Evidence in the United States

DNA Warrant

by Emmett Berg (2010)

A state Supreme Court ruling in a rape case may expand the use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool.

The January 2010 opinion in People v. Robinson (47 Cal. 4th 1104 (2010)) held that a “John Doe DNA warrant” – a warrant based entirely on biological evidence – meets particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment and of Article I, Section 13 of the state Constitution, and also satisfies the statute of limitations.

There’s no statute of limitations for homicide. But the perpetrators of other violent crimes and sexual offenses cannot be prosecuted if authorities fail to charge a suspect within a proscribed amount of time (currently from about three years in most felony cases to ten years for certain sex crimes). Now, the ruling in Robinson gives California law enforcement the ability to meet charging deadlines by using DNA gathered from a crime scene. So even when authorities don’t know who the suspect is, they can substitute his or her genetic signature for the name on an arrest warrant.

The Robinson case originated in 2000, when a Sacramento police detective faced the statute of limitations on a 1994 rape. The detective discussed the ongoing investigation with Anne Marie Schubert, a supervisory deputy district attorney who had just read about the use of DNA warrants in Wisconsin. Schubert applied the same concept to a complaint in the rape case, filing charges just days before the statute of limitations was to expire. Two weeks later, after running the DNA profile through a criminal database, Schubert had a match. The suspect was identified as Paul E. Robinson, who became one of the nation’s first defendants to be indicted – and later arrested – on the basis of DNA alone. (He was eventually convicted and sentenced to 65 years in prison.)

Prosecutors see DNA warrants as a natural application of science to criminal law. “The Supreme Court properly recognized that a DNA profile is at least as accurate, if not far more accurate, than any traditional means of identifying a perpetrator in an arrest warrant or complaint,” says a spokeswoman for the California Attorney General.

But Justice Carlos Moreno, who wrote the dissent in January’s Robinson decision, expressed concern that in this case DNA warrants had been used as a “clever artifice intended solely to satisfy the statute of limitations until the identity of the perpetrator could be discovered.”

Lawyers also differ on the potential impact of the ruling. “This is a new mechanism to reduce crime,” says Sacramento County’s Schubert.

However, only a handful of criminal proceedings in California have depended on DNA warrants, and interviews with district attorneys across the state suggest that the Robinson decision has had little immediate effect on local law enforcement.

Still, Cara DeVito, the West Hills appellate attorney who represents Robinson, predicts that the ruling may ultimately affect an array of criminal cases. “Now,” she says, “a clever prosecutor can probably try the same trick to escape the statute of limitations.”

DNA Data Bank

In the spring of the year 2010, California got its 12,000th “cold hit” through its DNA Data Bank, which averages 300 matches of forensic evidence with DNA profiles of suspects each month. California runs the fourth-largest genetic database in the world, thanks in part to the passage of a voter-approved proposition in 2009 that requires everyone arrested on a felony charge – regardless of whether they are convicted – to contribute a biological sample to the data bank. Nationally, the FBI’s National DNA Index contains more than 8 million DNA samples taken from offenders and 311,560 forensic profiles gathered from crime scenes.

DNA DATA BANK BY THE NUMBERS (California)

  • 1.5 million Offender DNA Samples
  • 31,307 Forensic Evidence Profiles
  • 12,425 Matches

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation; and California Attorney General´s Office, as of April 30, 2010

DNA, Sexual Behaviour and the Law

Resources

See Also

Circumstantial evidence; Composite drawing; DNA fingerprint; DNA sequences, unique; Mitochondrial DNA analysis; Frye standard.

CODIS: Combined DNA Index System; DNA; DNA profiling; European Network of Forensic Science Institutes; Privacy, legal and ethical issues; Standardization of regulations; STR (short tandem repeat) analysis.

Further Reading

Further Reading (Articles)

DNA Evidence Collection Procedures, Law & Order; March 1, 2005; Gahn, Laura

Tainted DNA Evidence and Post-Conviction Reversals in Houston, Texas: Suggested Solutions to Curb DNA Evidence Abuse, American Journal of Criminal Law; July 1, 2004; Eckroth, Jennifer

DNA evidence: balancing the scales of justice., LawNow; October 1, 2001; Holmgren, Janne Winterdyk, John

DNA is only new evidence for Dechaine ; A judge limits what can be presented in the convicted killer’s bid for a new trial., Portland Press Herald (Portland, ME); September 21, 2005; GREGORY D. KESICH Staff Writer

DNA: Holy grail of evidence, Telegraph – Herald (Dubuque); May 5, 2009; COURTNEY BLANCHARD

Almost anything can yield evidence: “DNA from Crime Scene to Courtroom” teaches students various aspects of DNA.(Cover Story), Law Enforcement Technology; March 1, 2005; Kanable, Rebecca

DNA examinations.(Evidence Examinations)(Deoxyribonucleic acid ), Handbook of Forensic Services; January 1, 2003

IS DNA EVIDENCE ENOUGH? AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID KAYE.(Interview), States News Service; July 29, 2010

Legal standards and the significance of DNA evidence, Human Biology; October 1, 1997; Gomulkiewicz, Richard Slade, Norman A

DNA Evidence Collection and Analysis, TELEMASP Bulletin; September 1, 2008; Schnurbush, Kim

DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence., Michigan Law Review; February 1, 1999; Donnelly, Peter Friedman, Richard D.

D.C. Police Behind on DNA Tests of Old Evidence; Lab Would Compare Profiles To Backlog of Unsolved Cases, The Washington Post; June 27, 2004; Del Quentin Wilber

STATE LAB TO SEEK DNA EVIDENCE ONLY ON REQUEST.(FRONT), The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA); February 17, 2003

D.C. Police Behind on Analysis of DNA in Old Evidence, The Washington Post; June 27, 2004; Del Quentin Wilber

New DNA tests to start in Dechaine case ; Prosecutors say DNA results from a 1988 killing won’t change the evidence that led to a conviction., Portland Press Herald (Portland, ME); October 28, 2003; DAVID HENCH Staff Writer

Trace Evidence Scrapings: A Valuable Source of DNA?, Forensic Science Communications; October 1, 2001; Stouder, Stacy L. Reubush, Kimberly J. Hobson, Deborah L. Smith, Jenifer L.

The murky world of DNA evidence, Belfast Telegraph; September 21, 2007; Eamonn McCann

Issue of DNA Evidence Comes Up in Martinez Case, Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL); December 22, 1997; Cole, Bill

DNA evidence in criminal law: new developments. (includes related article on Association of Trial Lawyers of America Criminal Law Section) (Science and the Law), Trial; August 1, 1994; Thompson, William C.

SJC backs use of DNA evidence, The Boston Globe (Boston, MA); November 19, 1994; John Ellement, Globe Staff


Posted

in

, ,

by