Developing Empirically Informed Policies for Sexual Assault Kit DNA Testing: Is It Too Late to Test Kits Beyond the Statute of Limitations?

Abstract

A growing body of research indicates that there are thousands of sexual assault kits (SAKs) in police property storage facilities that have never been submitted for DNA forensic testing. Some of these rape kits may be quite dated, and the statute of limitations (SOL) for prosecution of the case may have expired. Whether testing such kits could still provide useful information for criminal justice system personnel is unknown. To address this gap in the literature and to inform policy regarding rape kit testing, we randomly sampled 700 previously untested SAKs from Detroit, MI: 350 were presumed to be beyond the SOL for prosecution (based on the date the SAK was collected), and 350 were still within the SOL. All SAKs were submitted for DNA testing, and then we quantified and compared the forensic testing outcomes. At issue was whether these older SAKs would yield DNA profiles that were eligible for entry into Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the federal DNA forensic database, and whether these profiles would match ("hit") to other criminal offenses catalogued in CODIS. Rates for presumed SOL-expired SAKs and unexpired SAKs were compared via a continuation-ratio model and equivalence tests. The rates of CODIS-eligible DNA profiles, CODIS hits, and serial sexual assault CODIS hits were statistically equivalent in the SOL-expired and SOL-unexpired groups. Testing older SAKs has

Moving Forward While Looking Back: Understanding the Influence of a “Test All” SAK Mandate on Sexual Assault Case Attrition

“…The argument in favor of prioritization on these grounds is that the probative value of forensic results is higher in cases in which the victim and offender are strangers because in those incidents of sexual assault, DNA testing and a possible CODIS match may offer the best chance to identify a suspect and solve the case (Johnson et al, 2012;Peterson et al, 2012). Others, however, have challenged the idea that prioritizing is a viable approach to testing based on evidence that DNA CODIS suspect matches are equally likely to come from cases involving strangers as those in which the victim and offender knew each other (R. Campbell et al, 2019;Lovell et al, 2018).…”

“…Comprehensive testing and submission of DNA profiles is also important for the identification of serial offenders. Evidence suggests that most offenders commit more than one sexual offense (Lisak & Miller, 2002) and analysis of SAKs has underscored these findings (R. Campbell et al, 2019;Lovell et al, 2017). Accordingly, even if the statute of limitations has passed, there remains value in testing previously untested kits (R. Campbell et al, 2019).…”

“…Evidence suggests that most offenders commit more than one sexual offense (Lisak & Miller, 2002) and analysis of SAKs has underscored these findings (R. Campbell et al, 2019;Lovell et al, 2017). Accordingly, even if the statute of limitations has passed, there remains value in testing previously untested kits (R. Campbell et al, 2019).…”

Public Knowledge and Perceptions About Unsubmitted and Untested Sexual Assault Kits

“…Further, the potential value of testing SAKs is plentiful. The testing of kits—regardless of victim-offender relationship and statute of limitations—can result in CODIS hits (Campbell et al, 2016; Campbell et al, 2018; Campbell et al, 2019b) and help identify previously unknown suspects, confirm identities of identified suspects, and exonerate those who have been wrongfully convicted (Campbell et al, 2017a). Recently, researchers have explored how the testing of previously unsubmitted kits can help identify serial sex offenders (Campbell et al, 2019a; Campbell et al, 2020; Lovell et al, 2019; Lovell et al, 2020).…”

Criminal Justice Considerations for Unsubmitted and Untested Sexual Assault Kits: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Moving Forward

“…Campbell, Feeney, et al, 2016; R. Campbell, Pierce, Sharma, Feeney, & Fehler-Cabral, 2016b; see also Spohn, 2016; Wells, 2016), as well as kits involving cases both within and outside of the statute of limitations (R. Campbell, Pierce, Sharma, Feeney, & Fehler-Cabral, 2016a).…”