Despite recent developments and the growth of forensic science services in the United States, little published research exists on the impact of forensic evidence on criminal case outcomes. The present study focused on the influence of forensic evidence on the case processing of residential burglary incidents in the United States. The study utilised a prospective analysis of official record data that followed cases in five jurisdictions from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The study results showed that most residential burglaries went unsolved. Only 8.2 per cent of the 1,263 burglary incidents resulted in arrest and only 3.2 per cent of all incidents had a conviction. Cases were more likely to have arrests and referrals to the district attorney when witnesses and victims provided information to the police and forensic evidence was collected at crime scenes. The only significant predictor of case charges was witness reports. Forensic evidence variables did not influence case charges or convictions significantly. The study results suggest that forensic evidence was auxiliary and non-determinative for residential burglary incidents. Research for this article was supported through National Institute of Justice (NIJ) research grant # 2006-DN-BX-0094. Points of view expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NIJ.
AllisonP. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system. Cary NC: SAS Institute.
2.
AsplenC. (2003). The application of DNA technology in England and Wales. Final Report, # 2002 LT-BX-K003, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
BaskinD.SommersI. (2010). The influence of forensic evidence on the case outcomes of homicide incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1141–1149.
5.
BaskinD.SommersI. (in press). The influence of forensic evidence on the case outcomes of assault and robbery incidents. Criminal Justice Policy Review.
6.
BelsleyD.KuhE.WelschR. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley.
7.
BerkR. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386–398.
8.
BernascoW. (2007). The usefulness of measuring spatial opportunity structures for tracking down offenders: A theoretical analysis of geographic offender profiling using simulation studies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 155–171.
9.
BernascoW.NieuwbeertaP. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 296–315.
BondJ. (2007). Value of DNA evidence in detecting crime. Journal of Forensic Science, 52, 128–136.
12.
BondJ. (2009). The value of fingerprint evidence in detecting crime. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(1), 77–84.
13.
BondJ.SheridanL. (2008). A novel approach to maximising detection of high volume crime with DNA and fingerprints. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10(3), 326–338.
14.
BriodyM. (2004). The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 231–253.
15.
BuddT. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey (Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 4/99). London: Home Office.
16.
ClareJ.FernandezJ.MorganF. (2009). Formal evaluation of the impact of barriers and connectors on residential burglars' macro-level offending location choices. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 139–158.
17.
ClareJ.FerranteA. (2007). Typical burglaries in WA: Decision-making and processes. Perth, Australia: Crime Research Centre and Office of Crime Prevention. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.crimeprevention.wa.gov.
18.
ChaikenJ.ChaikenM. (1982). Varieties of criminal behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
19.
CoupeT.GriffithsM. (1996). Solving residential burglary. London: Home Office Police Research Group.
20.
CromwellP.OlsonJ.AvaryD. (1993). Modeling decisions made by residential burglars. Studies on Crime and Prevention, 2, 113–21.
21.
Daftary-KapurT.DumasR.PenrodS. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 133–154.
22.
DuroseM. (2008). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
23.
FarringtonD.LambertS. (1994). Differences between burglars and violent offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 107–115.
24.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2003. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
25.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
26.
FeeneyF.DillF.WeirA. (1983). Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
27.
GreenwoodP.ChaikenJ.PetersiliaJ.PrusoffL. (1975). The criminal investigation process: Vol. III. Observations and analysis. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
28.
HeckmanJ. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
29.
HeumannM. (1979). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys. University of Chicago Press.
30.
JohnsonD.PetersonJ.SommersI.BaskinD. (in press). Use of forensic science in investigating crimes of sexual violence: Contrasting its theoretical potential with empirical realities. Violence Against Women.
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.
35.
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, National Research Council.
36.
ParkerB.PetersonJ. (1972). Physical evidence utilization in the administration of criminal justice (LEAA Grant NI-032). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
37.
PetersiliaJ.GreenwoodP.LavinM. (1978). Criminal careers of habitual felons. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
38.
PetersonJ.HickmanM. (2005, February). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 1–16.
39.
PetersonJ.RyanJ.HoldenP.MihajlovicS. (1987). The uses and effects of forensic science in the adjudication of felony cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 1730–1753.
40.
Police Standards Unit. (2006). Forensic performance monitors, 2005. London: Home Office.
41.
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.
42.
RolphJ.ChaikenJ. (1984). Identifying high-rate serious criminals from official records. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
43.
RomanJ.ReidS.ReidJ.ChalfinA.AdamsA.KnightC. (2008). The DNA field experiment: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of DNA in the investigation of high-volume crimes (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
44.
RosettA.CresseyD. (1976). Justice by consent: Plea bargains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
45.
RossmoD. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
46.
ShoverN. (1991). Burglary. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 73–113). Chicago University Press.
47.
SmithB.PenrodS.OttoA.ParkR. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49–82.
48.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the 'gateway to justice’. Social Problems, 48, 206–235.
49.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651–688.
50.
StudebakerC.DevenportJ.PenrodC. (2009). Perspectives on jury decision-making: Cases with pretrial publicity and cases based on eyewitness identifications. In. DursoF. (Ed.), Handbook of law and psychology (pp. 1–18). New York: Wiley.
51.
TrumanJ.RandM. (2010). Criminal victimization, 2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey.
WebbB.SmithC.BrockA.TownsleyM. (2005). DNA fast-tracking. In SmithM. J.TilleyN. (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 167–190). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
54.
WilliamsR. (2004). The management of crime scene examination in relation to the investigation of burglary and vehicle crime (Home Office Online Report 24/04). Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/.
55.
WrightR.DeckerS. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
