Indicting a Test Tube?
It’s good PR when cops solve crimes. It’s bad PR when a known suspect evades prosecution (see Roman Polanski). It’s really bad PR when an unknown suspect remains undetected. The latter not only leaves the public questioning law enforcement’s ability to do its job, but also eats away at the amount of time in which a case could be brought against a perpetrator.
While certain crimes – murder – have no statute of limitations, there are legal limits placed on the amount of time that can pass between the commission of a crime and the resulting prosecution. This is especially true in rape cases, where convictions often carry sentences similar to homicide crimes, but unlike homicide cases, the legal clock looms on rape cases. For instance, here in Georgia, the statute of limitations (the time from the crime occurred to when charges are brought) for forcile rape is 15 years. Thus, if the identify of the perpetrator surfaces in 16 years, that person cannot be prosecuted for the crime.
To combat this problem, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in New York has implemented the creative strategy of indicting the rapist’s DNA. Not a person, but a genetic profile. Thus, as long as the profile is indicted by the time the clock runs on the statute of limitations, then conceivably a case can be brought at any time once the perpetrator’s identity has been established. The New York Times details the story of a rape committed in 1993. When the statute of limitations was set to expire in 2003, authorities brought charges against the profile since the assailant’s identity was unknown. In 2007, the indicted profile was linked to Victor Rondon, who was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 44 to 107 years in prison. If prosecutors had not indicted the DNA profile in 2003, they would have been barred from bringing charges against the identified perpetrator – Victor Rondon – in 2007.
This creative manipulation of statute of limitation laws is connected to the added focus that law enforcement agencies are devoting to cold cases. In New York City, prosecutors have secured 117 indictments of DNA samples in rape cases, linked 18 of those profiles to specific people, and obtained 13 convictions, either through trials or negotiated pleas. Five cases are pending.
New York spearheaded the practice of profile indictments in 2003 under the John Doe Indictment Project, which sought (much like a genetic profile) to preserve the ability to prosecute sexual assault cases indefinitely – statutes of limitation be damned.
This practice, now being applied in other jurisdictions to rape and other crimes such as burglary, seems to chip away at the foundation of the criminal justice system. While I don’t purport to know why certain crimes were given their respective statutes of limitation, it seems that there was reason and intent to do so. Is science enough of a reason to extinguish those limits? Should science effectively toll the statute of limiations in perpetuity? What about a fair trial – the ability to confront witnesses and put forth a zealous defense? It seems that yet again the bling of new shiny science has suppressed the need for considered debate.
Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. http://www.legal-attorneys.info/
This is my first time to visit your blog and I would say you share nice information. You definitely do research and write very well. Keep it up!
this is significant
I have big fun read this blog post. I need to see more on this content.. Many thanks for writing this quality content.. Anyhow, So i am going to sign up for a rss as well as I wish you publish useful articles again rapidly.
Hi Jessie,
I came across your article and found your analysis really interesting. The case you referenced from the New York Times is that of Natasha Alexenko, whose perpetrator Victor Rondon was finally caught 15 1/2 years after the crime was committed. Natasha went on to form a nonprofit organization called Natasha’s Justice Project that in addition to eliminating the backlog of untested rape kits, as was the case with hers, the organization seems to remove the statute of limitations on sexual assault.
Perhaps there was some science behind the statute but with today’s DNA evidence sitting on shelves collecting dust many rape kits are incinerated before they’re even tested for DNA because the statute has expired.
Thanks for writing about this particular case and getting the discussion going!
All the best,
Megan Heckman – Director of Operations, Natasha’s Justice Project