skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 220985     Find in a Library
Title: Killing Time: The Application of John Doe Indictments to Keep Cases Warm
Author(s): Catherine M. Guthrie
Date Published: 04/2007
Page Count: 2
Document: HTML 
Type: Issue Overview
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article describes a new legal tactic using DNA profiles to avoid statutes of limitation.
Abstract: Through the use of DNA technology, lawmakers have created innovative and increasingly popular solutions to statutes of limitation: the John Doe indictment. Unlike their traditional counterparts, John Doe indictments use DNA profiles instead of names to identify individual suspects. As a result, crime scene evidence such as semen or hair samples can hold a case open for years, until a viable suspect is identified. Specifically, a statute of limitations reflects a legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no quantum of evidence is sufficient to convict. In general, the clock starts to run from the time the crime was committed and is suspended by the commencement of a prosecution. Commencement requires an indictment against a specific individual. If a suspect is not identified and the deadline is not met, the accused becomes immune from action. Statutes of limitation were designed with the general goal of promoting justice through finality. The most commonly cited of these purposes include: (1) ensuring the use of fresh evidence, (2) encouraging prompt and efficient police work, and (3) generating closure and repose for both criminals and the community. However such laws can also arguably denigrate justice by arbitrarily and unsympathetically allowing criminals to avoid capture and punishment. This is significant in cold cases because, by definition, months, years, or even decades have passed since the criminal act occurred. One of the earliest examples of a John Doe indictment is a 1999 rape/kidnapping case in Milwaukee. The Assistant District Attorney in the case successfully stopped the clock by identifying the perpetrator as John Doe, unknown male with matching DNA at specified genetic locations. While this trend is usually seen in sexual assault cases (where both biological evidence and statutes of limitation are more prevalent), one prosecutor even expanded the use of John Doe indictments to homicide. References
Main Term(s): Legislation ; Prosecution model ; Prosecution ; Legal research ; Deferred prosecution programs ; Legal system
Index Term(s): Evidence collection ; Evidence identification and analysis ; Evidence ; DNA fingerprinting
Note: Downloaded December 20, 2007
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242830

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.