I am surprised anyone would be against using DNA profiles to indict rapists, but, I’m surprised by a lot of things. I see no compelling reason to disallow an indictment of a person just because that person was smart enough to avoid being positively identified by name. And that’s what we are talking about here. The indictments are obtained within the proper Statute of Limitations, the only difference is that the defendant hasn’t been identified by name. I really don’t see the problem. I would also agree with the majority of Courts which have held that the Statute of Limitations is not a “fundamental right” but rather a legislatively created artifice. As such, I don’t believe indictments based only on DNA profiles should be struck down.
To answer some of Wang-Ka’s questions, an indictment must be “sufficient to identify the defendant with reasonable certainty.” Most every Court, and myself, agree that it is hard to get a better, more specific identifier than the DNA profile. While an indictment that simply identifies the defendant as “John Doe” without further identifiers is insufficient, a brief particular identifier may be enough, i/e John Doe, 6’1", m/w, brown hair, hazel eyes, with a Mom tattoo on the left shoulder would be sufficient enough. I know of no case involving indictments solely on the basis of fingerprints, but I would imagine it would be sufficient. They could certainly indict you based solely on your name, but they would probably could not do it based on your SDMB alias without more. Nor could they indict somebody for a crime and charge them as " The person who committed this crime."
We can take a look at State v. Dabney, 663 N.W.2d 366 (Wis.App.,2003.) which was just decided earlier this year. The Court looked at whether the DNA indictment “satisfies the particularity and reasonable certainty requirements” They then discussed other cases where the defendant was not identified by name, but by descriptions, and found that: "We conclude that for purposes of identifying “a particular person” as the defendant, a DNA profile is arguably the most discrete, exclusive means of personal identification possible. "
The Court then went on to discuss the Statute of Limitations issue and found that he was indicted before the 6 years, so it was fine. They went on to discuss the alleged attempts to circumvent the SofL, and said: “First, we note that the protection afforded by the statute of limitations “is not a fundamental right” of a criminal defendant. … Rather, it is a statutorily created right, whose primary purpose is to “protect the accused from having to defend himself against charges of remote misconduct.” That purpose has not been violated here.”
Finally, Dabney asserted that the DNA warrant violated his Due Process rights. Once again, the court found that it didn’t. His conviction was upheld. Poor guy. Maybe he won’t rape 15 year old girls at gunpoint anymore.
I fully support the use of these kinds of indictments and I would like to see other states follow California and Wisconsin’s lead and legislate so as to remove all questions of their propriety. And, lest you think I’m too strict, I also believe that if a Defendant can show that the DNA indictment violated his Due Process rights, then the case should be dismissed. I just think that it shouldn’t be dismissed based on the Statute of Limitations argument.