Studies and local police jurisdictions have documented the existence of potentially valuable forensic evidence that have never been submitted to a crime laboratory for examination. The failure to analyze evidence is concerning because this may have prohibited case advancement in the criminal justice system. This study examines this possibility by describing investigative activities that occur after forensic screening of evidence that was not submitted for testing at the time of the original investigation. The study examines only sexual assault cases and finds that testing has a minimal impact in this sample.
BeichnerD.SpohnC. (2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 461-498.
5.
BouffardJ. (2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527-542.
6.
BradburyS.FeistA. (2005). The use of forensic science in volume crime investigations: A review of the research literature (Crime Reduction and Safety Group Online Report OKR 43/05). London, England: Home Office.
7.
BriodyM. (2005). A case prioritizing system for forensic DNA laboratories. The Forensic Bulletin, 14, 34-35.
8.
CampbellR. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical system: Do rape victim advocates make a difference?Violence Against Women, 12, 30-45.
9.
CampbellR.PattersonD.BybeeD.DworkinE. (2009). Predicting sexual assault prosecution outcomes: The role of medical forensic evidence collected by sexual assault nurse examiners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 712-727.
10.
DavisR.JensenC.KitchensK. (2011). Cold-case investigations: An analysis of current practices and factors associated with successful outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
11.
DNA Advisory Board. (2008). Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories. Forensic Science Communications(FBI), 10(4), 1-22.
12.
DuroseM. (2008). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
13.
D’AmoraD.Burns-SmithG. (1999). Partnering in response to sexual violence: How offender treatment and victim advocacy work together in response to sexual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 293-304.
FrazierP.HaneyB. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.
18.
FrohmannL. (1991). Discrediting victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38, 213-226.
19.
GabrielM.BolandC.HoltC. (2010). Beyond the cold hit: Measuring the impact of the national DNA data bank on public safety at the city and county level. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 396-411.
20.
GaensslenR.LeeH. (2001). Sexual assault evidence: National assessment and guidebook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
HardyA.YoungK.HolmesE. (2009). Does trauma memory play a role in the experience of reporting sexual assault during police interviews? An exploratory study. Memory, 17, 783-788.
HorneyJ.SpohnC. (1996). The influence of blame and believability factors on the processing of simple versus aggravated rape cases. Criminology, 34, 135-162.
24.
JohnsonD.PetersonJ.SommersI.BaskinD. (2012). Use of forensic science in investigating crimes of sexual violence: Contrasting its theoretical potential with empirical realities. Violence Against Women, 18, 193-222.
25.
KerstetterW. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults against women. Criminology, 81, 267-313.
26.
LonswayK.WelchS.FitzgeraldL. (2001). Police training in sexual assault response: Process, outcomes, and elements of change. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695-730.
27.
LovrichN.PrattT.GaffneyM.JohnsonC.AsplenC.HurstL.SchellbergT. (2004). National forensic DNA study report, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
McEwenT. (2011). The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system (Final report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
29.
McGregorM.Du MontJ.MyhrT. (2002). Sexual assault forensic medical examination: Is evidence related to successful prosecution. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 39, 639-647.
NyeJ.PierceS.ZhangZ. (2011). Projected numbers of evidence kits expected to reach different states of forensic analysis: A summary based on data from the 400 project. Washington, DC: Office on Violence Against Women.
33.
PageA. (2007). Behind the blue line: Investigating police officers attitudes toward rape. Journal of Police and Community Psychology, 22, 22-32.
34.
PattersonD.CampbellR. (2012). The problem of untested sexual assault kits: Why are some kits never submitted to a crime laboratory?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2259-2275.
35.
PetersonJ. (1987). Use of forensic evidence by the police and courts. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
36.
PetersonJ.HickmanM.StromK.JohnsonD. (2013). Effect of forensic evidence on criminal justice case processing. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(Suppl. 1), S78-S90.
37.
PetersonJ.LeggettA. (2007). The evolution of forensic science: Progress amid the pitfalls. Stetson Law Review, 36, 621-660.
38.
PetersonJ.MihajlovicS.GillilandM. (1984). Forensic evidence and the police: The effects of scientific evidence on criminal investigations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
39.
PetersonJ.SommersI.BaskinD.JohnsonD. (2010). The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
40.
PlantyM.LangtonL.KrebsC.BerzofskyM.Smiley-McDonaldH. (2013). Special report: Female victims of sexual violence, 1994-2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
41.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2012). Critical issues in policing series: Improving the police response to sexual assault. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
PrattT.GaffneyM.LovrichN.JohnsonC. (2006). This isn’t CSI: Estimating the national backlog of forensic DNA cases and the barriers associated with case processing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 32-47.
43.
RitterN. (2010). Untested evidence: Not just a crime lab issue. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
44.
RitterN. (2011). The road ahead: Unanalyzed evidence in sexual assault cases. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
45.
RomanJ.ReidS.ReidJ.ChalfinA.AdamsW.KnightC. (2004). The DNA field experiment: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of DNA in the investigation of high-volume crimes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute of the Justice Police Center.
46.
RosayA.WoodD.RiveraM.PostleG.TePasK. (2011). Investigation and prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
47.
RoseV.RandallS. (1982). The impact of investigator perceptions of victim legitimacy on the processing of rape/sexual assault cases. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 23-36.
48.
SchroederD.WhiteM. (2009). Exploring the use of DNA evidence in homicide investigations: Implications for detective work and case clearance. Police Quarterly, 12, 319-342.
49.
SleathE.BullR. (2012). Comparing rape victim and perpetrator blaming in a police officer sample: Differences between police officers with and without specialized training. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 646-665.
50.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48, 206-235.
51.
SpohnC.TellisK. (2012). Police and prosecuting sexual assault in Los Angeles city and county: A collaborative study in partnership with the Los Angeles police department, the Los Angeles county sheriff’s department, and the Los Angeles county district attorney’s office. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
52.
SpohnC.TellisK. (2013, November20). The effect of forensic medical exams on sexual assault case outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology in Atlanta, GA.
53.
StarzynskiL.UllmanS.FilipasH.TownsendS. (2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims, 20, 417-432.
54.
StromK.HickmanM. (2010). Unanalyzed evidence in law enforcement agencies. American Society of Criminology, 9, 381-403.
55.
StromK.Ropero-MillerJ.JonesS.SikesN.PopeM.HorstmannN. (2009). The 2007 survey of law enforcement forensic evidence processing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
56.
Texas State Bill 1636, 82d Leg. (2011).
57.
ThompsonM.SitterleD.ClayG.KingreeJ. (2007). Reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police: Do they vary for physical and sexual incidents?Journal of American College Health, 55, 277-282.
58.
VirklerK.LednevI. (2009). Analysis of body fluids for forensic purposes: From laboratory testing to non-destructive rapid confirmatory identification at a crime scene. Forensic Science International, 188, 1-17.
59.
WellfordC.CroninJ.BrandlS.BynumT.EversenT.GaleriaS. (1999). An analysis of variables affecting the clearance of homicides: A multistate study. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.
