The Rap Sheet

If only from watching TV shows like "C.S.I.," most of us know that police agencies often rely on DNA analysis to identify the perpetrators of a crime. Of course, TV programs typically focus on bloody, violent crimes; how many viewers would tune in to watch police officers track down jaywalkers?

TV images notwithstanding, in everyday life property crimes such as burglary are far more prevalent than violent ones. The good news, according to a report funded and recently released by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), is that DNA analysis can also be an effective tool for solving  property crimes.

The NIJ study focused on 5 different police agencies and compared the results of burglary investigations that used only traditional police practices like fingerprint comparisons with the results of investigations in which the agencies also collected and analyzed DNA evidence. DNA emerged as the big winner. For example, when police agencies relied only on traditional methods of investigation, they identified the perpetrators in only 12% of the cases. When they also used DNA analysis, the agencies were able to identify perpetrators in 31% of the cases.

Part of the study's good news was that police officers were just as good at collecting evidence suitable for DNA analysis as forensic technicians. This means that police agencies thinking about expanding the use of DNA analysis to burglary may not have to spend as much money on white lab jackets as they feared.

Nevertheless, the obstacles to using DNA evidence to solve property crimes are considerable. Existing forensic laboratories aren't sufficiently funded to meet the demands for DNA analysis that have already been placed on them. For example, the LAPD has acknowledged that it has a massive backlog of unexamined DNA evidence from violent crimes and that it was uncertain of its ability to find the funding needed to reduce the backlog. And DNA analysis isn't cheap. According to the NIJ report, the average cost of using DNA analysis to arrest burglars who would not have been arrested through the use of traditional police methods was $14,169 per case.

Unless governments are willing to make huge increases in police agency budgets, any use of DNA analysis to solve property crimes will mean a reduction in the use of DNA analysis to solve violent crimes. Thus, while the report's findings were impressive, there's little likelihood that DNA analysis will become a major tool for solving property crimes anytime soon.

In 1979, 12-year-old Robin Samsoe disappeared.  She was supposed to be on her way to ballet class but never arrived. About two weeks later, the police found her remains some 50 miles away. About a month later, Rodney Alcala was arrested and charged with murdering her. He was convicted and sentenced to death. But that's hardly the end of the story: Nearly 30 years after Robin was killed, both Alcala and the case remain very much alive.

In 1984, the California Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court ruled that the trial judge had improperly allowed the jurors to hear evidence of Alcala's attacks on other young girls. So Alcala was again tried and convicted of killing Robin, but this time the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Having exhausted his state court remedies, in 1994, Alcala filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Nearly an entire decade passed before a federal court of appeal upheld the petition and again set aside Alcala's conviction. This time, the primary reason was that Alcala's trial lawyer was incompetent. The attorney had presented alibi evidence, but inexplicably failed to call the alibi witnesses who would have placed Alcala in another location at the time Robin disappeared.

Alcala now faces a third trial for killing Robin Samsoe. While Alcala has remained imprisoned, the police have uncovered DNA evidence allegedly linking Alcala to the murders of four other young women that took place between 1977 and 1979, so he now faces five charges of murder.

Is Alcala's case a shining example of our legal system at its best, trying to ensure that a man is not executed for a murder that he may not have committed after being represented by an incompetent lawyer? Or does his case portray our system at its worst, forcing Robin's family to watch as the courts bat a serial killer's case endlessly back and forth like a ping pong ball? At this point, either conclusion seems reasonable. What do you think?