Title: Understanding DNA Evidence: A Guide for Victim Service Providers 
Series: Bulletin
Author: Kathryn M. Turman
Published: April 2001
Subject: victim services
22 pages
53,248 bytes
----------------------------
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from Office for Victims of
Crime Resource Center at 800-627-6872.
----------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office for Victims of Crime
OVC Bulletin
Understanding DNA Evidence: A Guide for Victim Service Providers
by Kathryn M. Turman
----------------------------
About This Bulletin
Stories about the use of DNA evidence to convict offenders or exonerate
defendants in criminal cases have appeared in the media with increasing
frequency over the last few years. Criminal justice professionals and the public
realize that forensic DNA technology is revolutionizing the way law
enforcement officers investigate violent crimes, including crime scene
investigation, counseling rape victims to not wash away critical evidence,
accurate conviction of offenders, and connecting offenders to other brutal
crimes. This bulletin seeks to strengthen crime victims' confidence in the judicial
process by showing how DNA technology can empower the search for truth.
The importance of DNA evidence has grown considerably in recent years as
improved technology renders more accurate results and DNA evidence is used
more frequently to convict or exonerate defendants. As a result of its awesome
ability to convict a perpetrator or exonerate a convicted offender, particularly in
sexual assault and homicide cases, DNA evidence has become a powerful
crimefighting tool. This is precisely why victim service providers need to know
the significance of DNA evidence in victims' cases. They also should
understand how the identification, collection, and preservation of DNA at the
crime scene is critical in obtaining accurate test results.
Victims need to be provided with a simple but thorough explanation of how
DNA testing may be used in their case, the process and procedures used, and
the potential outcomes of the test results. It is important that victim service
providers relay this information to victims early in the investigative process to
help victims understand how DNA is used in investigating crimes and how it
can improve the chances of apprehending and convicting an offender.
DNA evidence is a useful and neutral tool in the search for justice. Whether it
helps convict or absolve individuals, DNA evidence will play an increasingly
important role in solving crimes in the future. The result will be better justice for
victims and safer communities.
----------------------------
DNA evidence is playing a larger role than ever before in criminal cases
throughout the country, both to convict the guilty and exonerate the wrongly
accused. Biological samples that were impossible to test for DNA 10 years ago
may yield critical evidence if tested today. Because DNA evidence is a
powerful tool in the search for truth, it is important that victim service providers
understand the potential significance of DNA evidence in their clients' cases.
What Is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the fundamental building block for an
individual's entire genetic makeup--our hereditary blueprint passed on to us by
our parents. It is a component of virtually every cell in the human body. A
person's DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a
person's lifetime. For example, the DNA in a person's blood is the same as the
DNA found in that person's saliva. DNA also is found in skin tissue, sweat,
bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, semen, and vaginal or
rectal cells. Parts of the DNA determine our physical characteristics, such as
eye and hair color, height, and bone structure, but the DNA collected from the
crime scene is for evidentiary purposes only and not to determine an assailant's
physical characteristics.
The Value of DNA Evidence
DNA is a powerful investigative tool because, with the exception of identical
twins, no two people have the same DNA. In other words, the sequence or
order of the DNA building blocks is different in particular regions of the cell,
making each person's DNA unique. Therefore, DNA evidence collected from a
crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the
same way that fingerprints are used. DNA also can identify a victim through the
DNA of relatives if a victim's body cannot be found. For example, if technicians
have a biological sample from the victim, such as a bloodstain left at a crime
scene, the DNA taken from that evidence can be compared with DNA from
the victim's biological relatives to determine if the bloodstain belongs to the
victim. When a DNA profile developed from evidence at one crime scene is
compared with a DNA profile developed from evidence found at another crime
scene, they can be linked to each other or to the same perpetrator, whether the
crime was committed locally or in another state.
DNA evidence in the form of saliva, blood, skin tissue, hair, and semen are
often recovered from crime scenes and can be crucial to the investigation of
sexual assaults and other violent crimes. For example, during a sexual assault,
biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, or saliva can be left
on the victim's body or at the crime scene. In addition, hair and fiber from
clothing, carpet, bedding, or furniture could be transferred to the victim's body
during an assault. This evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical
contact between an assailant and a victim. DNA properly collected from the
victim, crime scene, or suspect can be compared with known samples to place
the suspect at the scene of the crime. If there is no suspect, however, a DNA
profile of the crime scene can be entered into the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which allows
agencies to match DNA profiles with other profiles entered into local, state, and
national databases to identify a suspect or link serial crimes.
As with fingerprints, the effective use of DNA as evidence may require the
collection and analysis of elimination samples to determine whether biological
evidence came from a suspect or someone else. When investigating sexual
assault or rape cases, it may be necessary to obtain an elimination sample, such
as a blood or saliva sample, from the victim's relatives or consensual sex
partner to account for all of the DNA found on the victim or at the crime scene.
Evidence Collection and Preservation
Although this bulletin is not intended as an instructional manual for DNA
evidence collection, every victim service provider should be aware of important
issues involved in the identification, collection, transportation, and storage of
DNA evidence. These issues are as important for the victim service provider as
they are for the crime scene technician, nurse examiner, or other medical
personnel. If DNA evidence is not initially identified, it may not be collected,
and if DNA evidence is not properly collected, it may become contaminated or
degraded. If properly preserved, however, DNA from body fluid stains or
bones can be tested after many years in older cases in which questions of
identity remain unresolved or disputed. In many cases, these substances can be
analyzed to reliably link criminals to crimes or clear them as suspects.
It is crucial that victims of sexual assault understand why they should not
change clothes, shower, or wash any part of their body after the assault. Semen
may be found on clothing, bedding, or in the victim's vaginal, rectal, or oral
regions. Saliva, which contains valuable DNA, can be found on an area where
the victim was licked or bitten. In addition, if the victim scratched the assailant,
skin tissue that contains the assailant's DNA can be collected from beneath the
victim's fingernails. 
Although evidence technicians may be able to collect fingerprints and other
valuable forensic evidence from the crime scene, evidence that may be inside or
on a victim's body should only be collected by a physician or sexual assault
nurse examiner. A medical examination ideally should be conducted within
hours of the assault to treat injuries, test for sexually transmitted diseases, and
collect forensic evidence. The doctor or nurse examiner will use a special kit
that contains sterile cotton swabs to collect fluids from the vaginal cavity,
mouth, or other parts of the victim's body that may have come in contact with
the assailant. Fingernail scrapings and hair also may be collected as forensic
evidence at this time. The victim's clothes, especially undergarments, that were
worn during and/or after the assault should be collected for evidentiary
purposes. In addition, the examiner will take a control standard from the victim
in the form of blood or saliva and may collect a sample of the victim's head and
pubic hair. Given the sensitive nature of DNA evidence, victim service providers
should contact their crime laboratory personnel or evidence technicians when
collection questions arise.
Contamination Issues
Because extremely small amounts of DNA can be used as evidence, greater
attention to contamination issues is necessary when identifying, collecting, and
preserving DNA evidence. DNA evidence can become contaminated when
DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can
happen if someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence, or if the person
collecting the evidence touches his/her mouth, nose, hair, or any other part of
his/her body, and then touches the area that may contain the DNA to be tested.
In addition, environmental factors, such as heat and humidity, can accelerate the
degradation of DNA. Degradation refers to the breaking down of DNA into
smaller fragments by chemical or physical means. For example, wet or moist
evidence that is packaged in plastic will provide a growth environment for
bacteria, which can destroy DNA evidence. Biological evidence should always
be thoroughly air-dried, packaged in paper, and properly labeled, ensuring that
the chain of custody--a process used to document the chronological history of
the evidence--is maintained. DNA evidence that is properly identified, collected,
and preserved can be stored for years without risk of extensive degradation,
even at room temperature.
Forensic DNA Testing
Analyzing DNA evidence in a criminal case can take weeks or months to
complete and can be expensive, especially if multiple pieces of evidence are
submitted. During a criminal investigation, the police department or the
prosecutor's office often pays for the analysis. In criminal DNA cases,
laboratory personnel should work with the police department and prosecutor to
decide which evidence may be most probative to the case. Once a decision is
made about what evidence should be tested, the laboratory will extract and
analyze the DNA.
The laboratory analysis of DNA involves the examination of a DNA strand at
13 specific locations (loci). The DNA profile from biological evidence collected
from a crime scene can be compared with a profile from a known source (for
example, a semen stain from a crime scene could be compared with a blood or
saliva sample from a suspect). The DNA profiles from the biological evidence
are compared with the profile from a suspect at the loci tested. If the profiles
are the same, a statistic is generated which reflects how often one would expect
to find this particular DNA profile in the general population. This helps in the
analysis to determine whether the evidence likely came from the suspect or not.
In addition, this process can seek the source of DNA evidence found at a crime
scene by comparing the profile to convicted offenders in the CODIS database
in situations where investigators may not yet have a suspect.
DNA Testing Methods
Three methods are currently used to analyze DNA evidence. While these
methods are very reliable, sometimes results cannot be obtained or are
inconclusive if the quantity of the evidence is insufficient to analyze or if the
evidence has been contaminated or improperly preserved. The technology used
in analyzing DNA evidence is increasing in sophistication and in its ability to
distinguish individuals, so it may be possible to test evidence in the future in
ways that are not possible today.
The most common form of DNA analysis is called polymerase chain reaction
(PCR). The development of PCR testing has greatly advanced the field of
forensic DNA testing by increasing the success rate of the analysis of old,
degraded, or very small biological evidentiary samples. PCR testing has
allowed investigators to analyze evidence samples that previously could not be
tested because the quality or the amount of starting material was insufficient for
previous DNA analysis techniques.
The PCR process works by taking very small amounts of DNA from biological
evidence and making millions of copies of it. This process, often referred to as
PCR amplification, creates enough DNA to allow a laboratory analyst to
generate a DNA profile. The process also allows laboratory technicians to
analyze degraded biological material. A group of 13 different locations is used
for the analysis of evidentiary samples and to generate DNA profiles from
convicted offenders for the CODIS database.
Because of the capability of PCR testing to amplify very small quantities of
DNA, extreme care must be exercised to prevent contamination when
identifying, collecting, and preserving biological evidence. For this reason,
investigators and laboratory personnel should always wear disposable gloves,
use clean instruments, and avoid touching other objects when handling the
evidence.
The other two methods used to analyze DNA evidence are restriction fragment
length polymorphism (RFLP) testing and PCR testing on DNA from the
mitochondria of the cell. RFLP testing usually requires a sample that has
100,000 or more cells (such as a dime-sized bloodstain) and contains DNA
that is not degraded or broken into smaller fragments. RFLP has been widely
used since the late 1980s and is able to exclude wrongly accused individuals.
PCR testing on DNA from the mitochondria of the cell is conducted on samples
that are unsuitable for RFLP or PCR nuclear DNA testing (such as dried bones
or teeth, hair shafts, or samples that contain very little or highly degraded
nuclear DNA). Mitochondrial DNA testing is available only in a limited number
of laboratories primarily because of the time it takes to perform the tests.
Interpreting Results of DNA Analysis
Three types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and
inconclusive results. It is important that victim service providers, investigators,
and prosecutors understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain
their implications. While conclusive results are very reliable, DNA findings can
sometimes yield results that are difficult to interpret.
Inclusion
When the DNA profile of a known individual (a victim or suspect) matches the
DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as a
potential source of that evidence. However, the strength of this inclusion
depends, in part, on the number of DNA locations examined (up to 13 locations
can be examined) and the statistic reflecting how often the particular profile
would be found in the general population. A DNA profile shown to occur rarely
in the population (for example, 1 time in 5 million people) would more strongly
suggest that the individual is the source of the biological evidence than would a
more common DNA profile (for example, 1 time in 5,000 people). Increasing
the number of DNA locations tested typically results in more powerful statistics.
For this reason, several DNA locations are tested whenever possible.
In some cases, a DNA inclusion may provide information that is of limited value
to the investigative process. For example, results from samples taken from the
victim may be consistent with the DNA of the victim, such as vaginal evidence
in sexual assault cases. In addition, if the suspect wore a condom during the
assault, was aspermatic due to a vasectomy, or did not ejaculate after the
assault, additional DNA profiles may not be obtained from the evidence. The
results do not mean the suspect was not present and did not commit the
crime-only that the substance tested did not come from the suspect.
Additionally, inclusion does not necessarily mean a suspect is guilty.
Exclusion
When the DNA profile from an individual (a victim or suspect) does not match
the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the referenced
individual is "excluded" as the donor of the evidence. In some cases, it may be
necessary to perform additional testing to establish the source of the DNA
profile in the evidence. For example, a blood sample may be requested from
the husband of a sexual assault victim to determine whether the DNA profile
obtained from the vaginal swab is the result of a prior consensual act and not
the assault. Exclusion does not necessarily mean a suspect is innocent. 
Inconclusive Results
Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing did not produce information that
would allow an individual to be either included or excluded as the source of the
biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons. For
example, even with sensitive PCR testing, the quality or quantity of DNA
obtained from the biological evidence may be insufficient to produce definitive
DNA typing results. Inconclusive results also can occur if the evidentiary
sample contains a mixture of DNA from several individuals (for example, a
sample taken from a victim of a gang rape). Even if the suspect's DNA profile is
found in the biological evidence, the presence of DNA from other sources may
prohibit the establishment of an inclusive or exclusive result. If there is more
than one perpetrator or if in a sexual assault case the victim recently had
consensual intercourse in which semen also may have been deposited in the
victim's vaginal region, the results could contain profiles from more than one
person. When this happens, it is often not possible to determine which specific
types came from which donor. The suspect cannot be excluded as a possible
donor of the DNA found in the evidence sample, but a more conclusive result
may not be possible. These cases must be reported as inconclusive. As with all
DNA results, inconclusive findings should be interpreted in the context of the
other evidence in a case.
DNA Evidence: Closed Cases and Unsolved Cases
Although DNA technology can be used in criminal cases to place a suspect at
the scene of a crime, it also can be used to solve cases where no suspect
previously existed. In addition, it can be used to reevaluate prior convictions to
determine innocence. Using new technology to analyze DNA evidence in old
cases can provide answers to questions of guilt or innocence and remove
lingering doubts. Many postconviction DNA cases have released wrongly
convicted individuals based on evidence that was unsuitable for early DNA
testing. The development of advanced technology, such as PCR testing, makes
it possible to obtain conclusive results in cases in which previous testing might
have been inconclusive. It is important to realize that while the testing or
retesting may exonerate the individual, exclusionary results may not prove
actual innocence. Prosecutors, defense counsel, the court, and law enforcement
should concur on the need for testing on a case-by-case basis.
Using CODIS To Solve Crimes
The real investigative power of DNA technology can be realized in its
application to cases where a suspect has not yet been identified. DNA
technology and the FBI's CODIS database can help law enforcement identify
perpetrators or link serial crimes. CODIS uses two indices to generate
investigative leads in crimes that contain biological evidence-the forensic index
contains DNA profiles from biological evidence left at crime scenes, and the
offender index contains DNA profiles of individuals convicted of violent crimes.
Each state has a DNA database law that defines which convicted offenders
must enter their profiles into the database. Some states have expanded their
laws to require that all felons enter their DNA profiles into the state's database.
The CODIS database enables local, state, and federal forensic crime
laboratories to work together to solve crimes between jurisdictions or across
state lines. While CODIS is operated on the state level, the FBI's national
database (also known as the National DNA Index System or NDIS) may link
profiles from the databases of each of the 50 states to provide law enforcement
with a national network to investigate violent crime. The CODIS database will
continue to have an impact on the identification of serial rapists and murderers
who have committed crimes in more than one jurisdiction. It is important to
realize that although the power of the CODIS database primarily is used in
identifying perpetrators of crime, it also can affirm a suspect's innocence.
Case Studies: The Power of a DNA Match
Nothing illustrates the power of DNA evidence more effectively than the case
studies--or real-life experiences--of those whose lives have been changed by
such evidence. Whereas some case studies demonstrate DNA's ability to
exonerate inmates wrongfully convicted of crimes, others show the powerful
sense of closure and relief that a DNA match can bring to victims of violent
crime. The three very different case studies presented below reflect the power
of a DNA match and reveal some of the complexities involved in the criminal
justice system. Given the pain suffered and the time irrevocably lost, these
individuals' stories also indicate an urgent need to improve the capabilities and
response times of DNA databases and eliminate the growing backlog of rape
kits.
A Lifetime Struggle: The Courage of Kellie Greene
Kellie Greene's life changed forever late one January evening more than 7 years
ago following a visit to the laundry room in her apartment complex. As she
opened the door to her apartment, she was brutally attacked by an intruder
who smashed a tea kettle over her head and then raped her. At some point
during the vicious attack, which lasted 45 minutes, Kellie's rapist used
dishwashing detergent. It is unknown whether the rapist used it as a lubricant,
after ejaculation to cleanse himself, or purposely to destroy crucial DNA
evidence that ultimately could convict him of the assault. In any case, forensic
experts with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were able to retrieve
a sample of the rapist's semen from the sweater Kellie wore that night. It was
this key DNA evidence that, on February 28, 1997, linked David William
Shaw to Kellie's attack on January 18, 1994. More than a month would pass,
however, before she was told of the DNA match in April 1997.
The road to recovery for Kellie, and countless other rape survivors, is paved
with anger, loss, rage, sadness, numbness, confusion, shame, guilt, fear,
despair, and courage. The rape is a memory that never disappears and one that
marks a woman's life forever. The experience shapes how she reacts to life's
challenges and unexpected turns, how she gets through each day, how she
sleeps at night, how she feels about her sexuality, how she feels about her body,
and how she feels about men. "I think I always will struggle with the sexuality.
It's never the same. Something that should be natural becomes something that
you have to work at," Kellie said.
After Kellie's brutal attack and rape, she did not hesitate to report it to the
authorities. "There wasn't any question. I was beat up really badly," she said.
But once at the hospital, Kellie had to wait 3 hours in a hospital bed with her
head wound still bleeding because the hospital would not treat her without first
being seen by a medical examiner. It took seven staples to close the gash in her
head.
At the time of her rape, Florida was not processing nonsuspect cases because
of funding issues, and, as a result, DNA evidence in her case sat on a shelf for
more than 3 years before it was analyzed. If it had not been for persistent law
enforcement officers, particularly one detective, Kellie's rape kit might still be
sitting on a shelf. Because officers thought Kellie's rape was similar to rapes
occurring in Daytona Beach, less than 2 hours north of Orlando where Kellie's
attack occurred, her rape kit was dusted off and examined. Once the results
were entered into Florida's local DNA database, a hit was made via the FBI's
CODIS system, allowing for an almost immediate match. Her rapist's DNA
profile did not match the profile of the rapist in Daytona Beach but that of a
man already serving a 25-year sentence for beating and raping a woman 6
weeks before attacking Kellie.
While Kellie's rapist remains behind bars today, she continues to fight to keep
him there. Quirks in the criminal justice system, insensitivity toward the victim,
and human error allowed her case to slip through the cracks more than once,
resulting in a significantly reduced sentence for the offender. Not until late April
2000 was Kellie informed of a plea agreement stating that Shaw could serve
concurrently a 22-year sentence for Kellie's rape, a 15-year sentence for a
robbery, a 5-year sentence for obstructing justice, and the 25-year sentence for
the first rape. A motion filed by the defense attorney to clarify the sentence
never reached the state's attorney's office. Finally, the judge signed orders
denying Kellie restitution and denying her request that Shaw be treated with
chemical castration shots. As a result, Kellie's rapist could be released from jail
as early as 2001. Had consecutive sentences been ordered for his brutal
crimes, he would not be released until 2041.
After her trial, Kellie drafted and introduced a bill in the Florida legislature that
would mandate consecutive sentences for convicted sex offenders and
murderers in prison who are found guilty of subsequent offenses. Sponsored by
Representative Randy Johnson (R), the legislation was called the Sexual
Predator Prosecution Act of 2000. The bill passed Florida's House and Senate
unanimously and was signed into law in June 2000.
Kellie has been speaking out about her rape and recovery for more than 6
years. In October 1999, she formed a nonprofit organization named
SOAR--Speaking Out About Rape, Inc. She travels across the country giving
rape awareness seminars about the healing process and the importance of
DNA evidence in solving cases. SOAR gave her recovery a purpose. "I was
able to learn something from it and to help others. So often people think of the
rape only and not the aftereffects," she pointed out. "DNA is really an amazing
tool. You don't know where you're going to get the DNA from but you can get
it from a lot of places."
Note: If you would like to contact Kellie Greene or find out more about
SOAR, call 407-836-9692, fax 407-836-9690, or visit SOAR's Web site at
www.soar99.org.
A First Step Toward Healing: Crime Victim Debbie Smith's Story
Everything changed for rape victim Debbie Smith when the man who had raped
her 6 years earlier was identified. When processed through Virginia's DNA
databank, the DNA sample of her assailant collected years earlier had
produced a match or "hit" with DNA of an inmate in a Virginia prison. As
reflected by her compelling testimony before the National Institute of Justice's
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, that DNA match gave
Debbie final proof that her assailant would not "come back" for her, as he had
threatened. What is more important is that it allowed her to begin healing.
Debbie's ordeal began at about 1 p.m. on May 3, 1989, at her home in
Williamsburg, Virginia. She was cleaning house, doing laundry, and baking a
cake. A light rain was falling, and her husband--a police lieutenant--was
upstairs sleeping after working the night shift and appearing in court that
morning. After stepping outside briefly, Debbie came back in and, for some
reason, left the door unlocked. Within a few minutes, a masked stranger
entered Debbie's house and nearly destroyed her life. The stranger dragged
Debbie to a wooded area. He blindfolded her. He robbed her. And he raped
her repeatedly, telling her, "Remember, I know where you live and I will come
back if you tell anyone."
When allowed to return home, Debbie told her husband about the attack but in
fear begged him not to call the police. She just wanted to take a shower and
wash away the pain. Debbie's husband, however, convinced her to notify the 
police and visit a hospital where trained medical personnel could examine her
and collect physical evidence that might identify the rapist. If she showered, that
evidence would be lost. Debbie thanks God every day for her husband's
advice. Although she was "plucked and scraped and swabbed" during her visit
to the hospital, Debbie's rape examination kit produced the crucial DNA
evidence that ultimately identified her attacker.
True peace of mind came for Debbie Smith on July 26, 1995, when a forensic
scientist for the Commonwealth of Virginia notified Debbie that a DNA match
had been made. Her assailant was serving time in a Virginia prison for a
separate offense. For the first time since the rape, Debbie knew that her
attacker could not come after her. Debbie learned later that her assailant had
gone to jail only months after raping her. Because of a backlog in Virginia's
DNA database, she waited 6 years to hear about it.
Proof of Innocence: Inmate Ronald Cotton's Story
Ronald Cotton's story begins on a summer night in 1984 when two rapes were
committed in Burlington, North Carolina. In each case, an assailant entered an
apartment, cut the phone wires, raped a woman at knifepoint, and stole money
and other items. Both victims were taken to the hospital, where full rape
examination kits were completed.
The first victim, 22-year-old Jennifer Thompson, described her attacker as a
tall African-American man in his early 20s. Police collected photographs of
area men meeting that description, including 22-year-old Ronald Cotton, a
Burlington resident employed at a restaurant near Thompson's apartment.
Cotton had two prior convictions: one for breaking and entering, and another
for assault with intent to rape. Thompson selected Cotton from police photos as
her rapist. When Cotton visited the police station to clear up the
misunderstanding, he only strengthened the case mounting against him. He
claimed that he had been with friends on the night of the rapes, but those friends
did not corroborate his alibi. At a physical lineup of suspects, Thompson again
selected Cotton. In August 1984, police arrested Cotton and took him into
custody. In January 1985, Cotton was convicted of Thompson's rape and
sentenced to life in prison. That verdict, however, was overturned, and a new
trial was ordered. Cotton was optimistic given a crucial discovery he had made
about one of his fellow inmates, Bobby Poole-a tall African-American young
man from Burlington also convicted of rape who bore a strong resemblance to
the composite sketch used in Cotton's case. Poole had reportedly bragged to
inmates that he had committed the rapes for which Cotton was serving time.
The second trial was even more devastating than the first. Both victims testified
against Cotton; the jury did not believe that Poole was the real assailant; and,
most damaging of all, the court withheld evidence of Poole's alleged
confessions. Convicted of both rapes, Cotton received two life sentences plus
55 years in prison.
Back in prison, Cotton "waited it out" for years. In 1994, however, he learned
about DNA testing (a procedure unavailable at the time of his trials). He filed
and won a motion for DNA testing. In 1995, Burlington police turned over to
the court all case evidence containing semen or other bodily fluids. Samples
from Jennifer Thompson had deteriorated and could not be tested, but those
from the second victim provided a breakthrough for Cotton. On a tiny vaginal
swab, scientists found a bit of sperm. Subjected to PCR testing, that sample
showed no match to Ronald Cotton. He could not have committed the crime.
The state DNA database matched the sample to Bobby Poole. On June 30,
1995, almost 11 years after the rapes and 101/2 years after being taken into
custody, Ronald Cotton was cleared of all charges and released from prison.
Postconviction DNA Testing
Victims and surviving family members confront a number of issues and events
following the conviction and sentencing of a defendant. The impact of the crime
does not end with the incarceration of the offender. Convicted defendants have
the right to appeal their sentences, the opportunity for parole, and the ability to
file subsequent requests for additional DNA testing. All of these postconviction
events are upsetting to victims and families and serve as painful reminders of the
suffering and loss associated with the crime. It is extremely important that crime
victims and family members are approached with great sensitivity. This is
especially critical when the conviction was based primarily on eyewitness
identification by the victim. Victim service providers must be aware that victims
and their families may need special services to help them cope with
postconviction developments.
In the context of postconviction DNA testing, it is important to realize that if a
convicted offender requests DNA testing of old or newly discovered evidence,
this does not mean the request will be granted. Postconviction requests, in
which DNA evidence is available for testing and the test results are likely to
exonerate an offender, should be handled with great care because it may be
necessary to obtain samples from victims and third parties for the testing
process. Prosecutors and victim service providers should ensure that victim
counseling resources are available through their offices or a community-based
assistance program.
If testing results produce exculpatory evidence, particularly in mistaken
eyewitness identification cases, victims may still believe the defendant is guilty.
Victims may be upset and angry. For example, the credibility of sexual assault
victims is usually attacked in trial, and a conviction is viewed as a significant
validation of their credibility. To face having their credibility called into question
again can cause tremendous distress. In addition, some victims may feel terribly
guilty about their part in convicting an innocent person. Reassure the victim that
she did the best she could at the time and that memory can be fallible. It may
help to remind the victim that DNA technology, which may not have been
available at the time of the original investigation, is an important tool in making
sure the right person is convicted. Remind the victim or survivor that the
criminal justice system is not perfect, and emphasize the importance of knowing
the truth and identifying the right perpetrator to ensure justice and prevent
future victimization of other individuals.
Also, it may help to inform victims of the following:
o Even the Innocence Project, which uses DNA testing to exonerate persons
who have been wrongfully convicted, concedes that in many cases in which
postconviction requests are made for DNA testing, the results have confirmed
the identity of the convicted person as the true perpetrator. This confirmation
may have a significant impact on decisions regarding the perpetrator's probation
or parole.
o The victim should be assured that everyone in the system, particularly
prosecutors and judges, will make sure that ambiguous results that do not
clearly exonerate the perpetrator will not weaken the conviction or result in a
new trial.
o If postconviction testing of DNA evidence results in a valid exclusion, the
victim can be reassured that growing DNA databases will increase the
likelihood of identifying the true perpetrator. DNA databases also will make it
easier to accurately identify and link perpetrators in future cases.
Meanwhile, a number of states have passed victims' rights statutes that require
notification of victims, including notification of appeal proceedings, prison
release, application for pardon, or commutation of sentence. Agencies involved
in postconviction DNA cases should make certain they comply with applicable
state statutes.
Conclusion
The importance of the role forensic DNA evidence plays in solving sexual
assault and homicide cases cannot be overstated. DNA evidence is a crucial
tool used in effective police work to solve violent crimes. For those who have
been wrongly accused, sentenced, and imprisoned-sometimes for many
years-for a crime they did not commit, DNA evidence exonerates the innocent
and alerts law enforcement to pursue the true offender. By convicting the guilty
and freeing the innocent, DNA evidence truly serves the interests of justice.
Although DNA is a powerful tool, it is useless to the criminal justice system if
not properly collected, preserved, and tested. Members of the criminal justice
community must be trained to identify DNA evidence, to understand its
significance, and to counsel victims on how valuable it is in apprehending and
convicting offenders.
As technology to test forensic DNA evidence advances and huge backlogs of
rape kits decline in laboratories nationwide, crimes will be solved more quickly
and comparisons between known offenders and unsolved cases will increase
using the FBI's CODIS database.
For too long, victims of violent crime have been ignored, but the criminal justice
community now has an amazing tool that will offer victims relief, peace of mind,
and some closure for having experienced and survived brutal sexual crimes or
the death of a loved one. Victim service providers, law enforcement, evidence
technicians, prosecutors, and others involved in bringing justice to crime victims
are at the forefront of the DNA revolution, and they must strive to educate the
public about the vital role DNA plays in protecting victims from further trauma.
Glossary
This glossary highlights some of the technological terms victim service providers
may encounter when dealing with victims during a criminal investigation. Many
terms have been used in this bulletin, but others are listed to give providers a
more thorough understanding of the importance of DNA.
ABO Blood Typing: A commonly used genetic typing test that uses antibodies
to detect variations on the surface of human red blood cells. Individuals are
typed as having an A, B, O, or AB blood type by testing liquid or stains from
body fluids (such as blood, saliva, vaginal secretions). One out of every three
randomly selected pairs of people have the same ABO blood type.
Amelogenin: A gene present on the X and Y sex chromosomes that is used in
DNA identification testing to determine the gender of the donor of the DNA of
a biological sample.
Biological Evidence: Evidence commonly recovered from crime scenes in the
form of hair, tissue, bones, teeth, blood, or other bodily fluids.
Chain of Custody: A record of individuals who have had physical possession of
the evidence and the process used to maintain and document the chronological
history of the evidence. Documents should include the name or initials of the
individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having
custody of it, the dates the items were collected or transferred, where the items
were collected, the agency and case number, the victim's or suspect's name (if
known), and a brief description of the item.
CODIS: The Combined DNA Index System is an electronic database of DNA
profiles obtained from evidence samples from unsolved crimes and from known
individuals convicted of particular crimes. Contributions to this database are
made through state crime laboratories and the data are maintained by the FBI.
Contamination: The undesirable transfer of material to physical evidence (DNA)
from another source.
Degradation: The breaking down of DNA into smaller fragments by chemical or
physical processes. Degradation of DNA may limit its use as evidence.
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid, often referred to as the "blueprint of life," is an
organic substance found in nearly all cells. DNA determines each person's
individual characteristics. An individual's DNA is unique except in identical
twins. DNA in the cell nucleus is the genetic material inherited from our 
biological parents. The shape of DNA resembles a rope ladder that has been
twisted (double helix).
DNA Advisory Board (DAB): Created under the DNA Identification Act of
1994, DAB established standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories and
held its last meeting in fall 2000.
DNA Marker: A piece of DNA from a known location in the DNA molecule,
which differs between people. The DNA marker is used to identify the specific
genetic variations an individual possesses.
DNA Profile: A set of genetic characteristics that results from forensic DNA
analysis of several DNA markers.
DNA Typing or Profiling: The process of testing to identify DNA patterns or
types. In the forensic setting, this testing is used to indicate parentage or to
exclude or include individuals as possible sources of body fluid stains (blood,
saliva, or semen) and other biological evidence (bones, teeth, or hair).
Elimination or Reference Sample: A term used to describe a sample of known
source taken for comparison purposes. An elimination sample is one of known
source taken from a person who had lawful access to the crime scene to be
used for comparison with evidence of the same type. Examples of elimination
samples include blood or cheek (buccal) swabs for DNA analysis, fingerprints
from occupants, tire tread impressions from police vehicles, or footwear
impressions from emergency medical personnel. A reference sample is material
of a verifiable/ documented source which shows an   association or link
between an offender, crime scene, and/or victim when compared with evidence
of an unknown source. For example, a carpet cutting taken from a location
suspected as the point of transfer for comparison with the fibers recovered from
a suspect's shoes, a sample of paint removed from a suspect's vehicle to be
compared with paint found on a victim's vehicle following an accident, or a
sample of the suspect's and/or victim's blood submitted for comparison with a
bloodstained shirt recovered as evidence.
Exclusion: A DNA test result indicating that an individual is excluded as the
source of DNA evidence. In the context of a criminal case, exclusion does not
necessarily mean a suspect is innocent.
Exemplar: A biological sample (such as blood or saliva) collected from a
known individual to be used for comparison to DNA test results from evidence
samples. Also referred to as a standard.
Inclusion: A DNA test result indicating that an individual is not excluded as the
source of DNA evidence. In the context of a criminal case, inclusion does not
necessarily mean a suspect is guilty.
Inconclusive Results: A situation in which no conclusion can be reached 
regarding testing done due to one of many possible reasons (such as no results
obtained, uninterpretable results obtained, no exemplar/standard available for
testing).
Locus (pl. loci): The specific physical location of a gene on a chromosome.
Mitochondrial DNA: DNA found in the mitochondria in each cell of a body.
The sequencing of mitochondrial DNA can link individuals descended from a
common female ancestor.
Nuclear DNA: DNA found in the nucleus of a cell. DNA testing using RFLP,
DQA1 (DQa), PM, D1S80, or STRs screen markers in nuclear DNA.
PCR: Polymerase chain reaction is a process used in DNA identification testing
in which one or more specific small regions of the DNA are copied using a
DNA polymerase enzyme so that a sufficient amount of DNA is generated for
analysis. This process enables scientists to obtain genetic information from small
or degraded specimens.
Polymorphism: Variations in DNA sequences in a population that are detected
in human DNA identification testing.
Reference Sample: See Elimination or Reference Sample listing.
RFLP: Restriction fragment length polymorphism is a process used in DNA
identification testing in which size (fragment length) differences at specific
regions of the DNA are detected.
STR: Short tandem repeat(s) are small regions of the DNA that contain short
segments (usually 2, 3, 4, or 5 bases long) repeated several times in tandem
(side-by-side). Thirteen STR sequences have been selected as the genetic
markers to be used in CODIS.
Substrates: Any background material upon which a biological sample has been
deposited (e.g., clothing, glass, wood, or upholstery).
References
Connors, E., T. Lundregan, N. Miller, and T. McEwen. 1996. Convicted by
Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence To
Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice.
Hammond, H.A., and C. Thomas Caskey. 1997. Automated DNA Typing:
Method of the Future? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice.
Handbook of Forensic Services: Evidence Examinations-DNA General. 1999.
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Inman, K., and N. Rudin. 1997. An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.
Ledray, L.E. 2000. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (S.A.N.E.) Development
and Operation Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for
Victims of Crime.
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. 1999. Postconviction
DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. 1999. What Every Law
Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
National Research Council. 1992. DNA Technology in Forensic Science.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1996. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Weedn, V.W., and J.W. Hicks. 1998. The Unrealized Potential of DNA
Testing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice.
For Further Information
American Prosecutors Research Institute
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-549-4253
World Wide Web: www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/Index.html
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
202-324-3000
World Wide Web: www.fbi.gov
National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC)
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22201
703-276-2880
Emergency: 1-800-394-2255
E-mail: ncvc@ncvc.org
World Wide Web: www.ncvc.org
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence
National Institute of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW.
Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202-307-2942
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-851-3420 or 301-519-5500
TTY: 1-877-712-9279 (toll free) or 301-947-8374 (local)
Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW.
Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202-307-5983
Fax: 202-514-6383
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc
Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center (OVCRC)
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-627-6872 
TTY: 1-877-712-9279 (toll free)
World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.gov
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)
635-B Pennsylvania Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20003
202-544-1034
National Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE
Fax: 202-544-3556
E-mail: rainnmail@aol.com
World Wide Web: www.rainn.org
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (S.A.N.E.)-Sexual Assault Response Team
(S.A.R.T.)
World Wide Web: www.sane-sart.com
This Web site, sponsored by the Sexual Assault Resource Service (SARS) of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, provides information and technical assistance to
individuals and institutions interested in developing new S.A.N.E.-S.A.R.T.
programs or improving existing ones. SARS established the Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiner Development and Operation Guide, which offers users a
multidisciplinary, victim-centered way of responding to sexual assault victims.
Speaking Out About Rape, Inc. (SOAR)
69 East Pine Street
Orlando, FL 32801
407-836-9692
Fax: 407-836-9690
World Wide Web: www.soar99.org
Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) 
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-307-6026
Fax: 202-305-2589
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo
The Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) was created in 1995 to
implement the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and to lead the
national effort to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking of women.
VAWO works with victim advocates and law enforcement to develop grant
programs that support a variety of services for women, including advocacy,
emergency shelter, law enforcement protection, and legal aid. Two critical
VAWO grants are the STOP (Services*Training*Officers* Prosecutors)
Violence Against Women Formula Grants and the STOP Violence Against
Indian Women Discretionary Grants.
The STOP (Services*Training* Officers*Prosecutors) Violence Against
Women Formula Grants are awarded to the states, District of Columbia, and
territories to develop and strengthen their criminal justice system's response to
violence against women and to support and enhance services for victims. Each
grantee must allocate at least 25 percent of the grant funds to law enforcement,
at least 25 percent to prosecution, at least 30 percent to victim services, and at
least 5 percent to courts. The remaining 15 percent can be allocated at each
grantee's discretion within the broad parameters established by VAWA.
The STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Grants are awarded
to develop and strengthen tribal law enforcement and prosecution efforts to
combat violence against native women and develop and enhance services for
victims. Tribes that have law enforcement and prosecution responsibilities must
allocate at least 25 percent of their grant funds to tribal law enforcement, at
least 25 percent to tribal prosecution, at least 30 percent to victim services, and
at least 5 percent to courts. The remaining 15 percent can be allocated at each
grantee's discretion within the broad parameters established by VAWA.
----------------------------
NCJ 185690