Identification, Corroboration, and Charging: Examining the Use of DNA Evidence by Prosecutors in Sexual Assault Cases

Abstract

This study examines the influence of DNA evidence on prosecutorial decisions in sexual assault cases. Thirty-eight prosecutors experienced with prosecuting sexual violence cases were surveyed regarding the use of biological evidence in sexual assault cases, including the ways in which it is generally used, the cases in which it is most critical to have, and factors impacting case attrition. Results indicate that prosecutors perceive DNA evidence to be extremely valuable in prosecuting sexual assault cases. Several themes related to the perspective, context, process, and conditions under which DNA evidence plays a vital role in sexual assault case processing are identified.

A State Census of Unsubmitted Sexual Assault Kits: Comparing Forensic DNA Testing Outcomes by Geographic and Population Density Characteristics*

“…Finally, we emphasize that this study did not assess how CODIS hits and CODIS serial sexual assault hits were utilized by police and prosecutors in these jurisdictions and whether the forensic DNA testing results contributed to new arrests and convictions. Emerging data suggest that DNA evidence is instrumental in prosecutorial decision making for charging decisions in sexual assault case (44,45) so this is an important area for continued study. We have follow-up studies planned in both metro-and micropolitan jurisdictions in this state to explore these questions.…”

The Sexual Stratification Hypothesis and Prosecuting Sexual Assault: Is the Decision to File Charges Influenced by the Victim-Suspect Racial-Ethnic Dyad?

“…In this sample, 33.4% ( n = 130) of victims engaged in “risk-taking” behaviors. This study also includes a dichotomous measure that captures victim character issues (Alderden & Ullman, 2012; Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Henry & Jurek, 2020). If the victim had a history of alcohol and/or drug misuse, worked as a sex worker, had a criminal record, and/or was gang-affiliated, the variable was coded as 1.…”

“…Regarding evidentiary strength, the first variable measures if any type of physical evidence was collected from the scene of the incident, from the victim, and/or from the suspect (Alderden & Ullman, 2012; Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Henry & Jurek, 2020; Holleran et al, 2010; O’Neal et al, 2015). This composite measure of evidence was coded 1 if any of the following types of evidence were collected: clothing, semen, fingerprints, blood, hair, or bedding.…”

“…Notably, while legal factors related to crime seriousness and physical evidence influenced charging decisions, victim credibility was also an important consideration in the decision to file charges (O’Neal et al, 2015). More recently, Henry and Jurek’s (2020) evaluation of prosecutors’ justification for SA case rejection revealed that prosecutors were primarily concerned with victim credibility and cooperation. Moreover, their findings support previous research in that some prosecutors had a “downstream focus” and were concerned with jurors’ perceptions and interpretations of the case (Frohmann, 1991; Henry & Jurek, 2020).…”

“…More recently, Henry and Jurek’s (2020) evaluation of prosecutors’ justification for SA case rejection revealed that prosecutors were primarily concerned with victim credibility and cooperation. Moreover, their findings support previous research in that some prosecutors had a “downstream focus” and were concerned with jurors’ perceptions and interpretations of the case (Frohmann, 1991; Henry & Jurek, 2020). Collectively, qualitative studies have uncovered various factors that influence prosecutorial decision making in SACP.…”