IAPE Evidence Blog

Star-News (Wilm­ing­ton, NC)
BYLINE: Laura Bauer; McClatchy Newspapers

Kansas City, MO

Police and pros­e­cu­tors said some­one spit it out years ago after he broke in and then dam­aged sev­eral class­rooms in a local school. They’ve yet to lock up any­one for the crime, and the statute of lim­i­ta­tions has long expired.

But here’s the thing: The candy con­tained a man’s DNA.

So pros­e­cu­tors charged that DNA. 

A crit­i­cal crime solver, genetic sci­ence has clinched guilty ver­dicts in mur­der and rape cases for years. Now, as the tech­nol­ogy advances, pros­e­cu­tors in a few pock­ets of the coun­try sys­tem­at­i­cally use DNA evi­dence to file what are known as “John Doe” com­plaints, or no-name war­rants, in less seri­ous crimes such as bur­glary and vandalism.

“If you don’t stop the clock from tick­ing, there’s noth­ing you can do,” said Ted Hunt, an assis­tant Jack­son County pros­e­cu­tor who spe­cial­izes in DNA evi­dence. “It’s too late.”

Since 2002, Jack­son County, Mo., pros­e­cu­tors have filed 28 John Doe com­plaints, and Hunt said that num­ber would grow sub­stan­tially. That’s because police and pros­e­cu­tors make sure they watch the clock.

When­ever a bur­glary, rob­bery or van­dal­ism with DNA evi­dence is near­ing its statute of lim­i­ta­tion, police alert Hunt’s office, and pros­e­cu­tors file a no-name charge.

By fil­ing these com­plaints, and charg­ing the DNA instead of a named sus­pect, pros­e­cu­tors put cases on hold until they know whose genetic fin­ger­print they charged. These cases oth­er­wise wouldn’t be solved within the statute of lim­i­ta­tions, and the sus­pects would be let off scot-free.

“Before, it was extremely frus­trat­ing,” said Kansas City police spokesman Capt. Rich Lock­hart. “You knew if he got away with it for three years, there was noth­ing we could do. Now, after all the hard work put into a case, some­one will be held account­able for that,” Lock­hart said. “Whether it’s now or 25 years from now.”

Ten of the John Doe com­plaints filed in Jack­son County have had matches in the data­base and sus­pects named. Of those cases, most have been through the court process.

In the candy case, pros­e­cu­tors charged the DNA pro­file in 2006, about a week before the three-year statute of lim­i­ta­tions would run out. Author­i­ties haven’t got­ten a match on the DNA.

Crim­i­nal defense advo­cates said there was a down­fall to charg­ing someone’s DNA. Statutes of lim­i­ta­tions exist for a rea­son, they said.

People’s mem­o­ries fade. Wit­nesses move and can’t be found.

“If a defen­dant in a prop­erty crime is arrested 20 years after the fact, based on his DNA, he’s not able to defend him­self effec­tively,” said J.R. Hobbs, a Kansas City defense attorney.

But lawyers on the other side don’t buy that criticism.

“They claim that DNA is the best evi­dence out there, yet when pros­e­cu­tors and law enforce­ment use that evi­dence to con­vict their clients, they claim it’s unfair,” said Robert Giles, a senior attor­ney. “This isn’t a game where if the per­son can stay away from the police, they get away with it.”

Courts across the coun­try have upheld the use of John Doe com­plaints. Last month the Supreme Court of Cal­i­for­nia ruled the no-name war­rants were autho­rized under state law.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org