NEW TEXAS DNA LAW ALLOWS FOR ARREST IN 19-YEAR OLD UNSOLVED RAPE CASE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL PREVENT MOST ARRESTS

In 1990, Jennifer Schuett was snatched from her bed, raped in a field and left for dead when she was just 8 years old. Her injuries were so severe, doctors told her she would never be able to talk again. CNN article here.

Doctors performed a rape kit after the assault but technology did not allow for a conclusive result.

In 1997, her attacker, Dennis Earl Bradford, was sent to prison for a similar offense. At the time, DNA testing technology was more advanced and his DNA was entered into a database following his felony conviction. (Many states have a similar law: upon conviction of a felony, the defendant shall enter his DNA into a database.)

Last month, on September 1, a new TX law allowed for DNA preserved in old cases to be entered into a database. Blog here: New Texas Law: Old DNA on Cases NOT Prosecuted Can Be Used Against Person

Now, just a month over the passing of the new law, old DNA that was preserved in an unsolved rape can be entered into a database to search for someone who had subsequently been entered into the system, most likely for another conviction. Clearly, this law is working in the way it was intended: to finally bring sexual assault victims justice.

Unfortunately, many people will not be able to seek proper justice because sexual assault cases have a statute of limitations, meaning prosecutors must charge and prosecute a case within a certain number of years. I am assuming that Mr. Bradford's arrest was possible because he is also charged with attempted murder.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

New Texas Law: Old DNA on Cases NOT Prosecuted Can Be Used Against Person

On Tuesday, a new Texas law brings "due process" into a new debate: DNA that was collected from sex crimes that were never prosecuted will be placed into a database that is accessible to law enforcement, parole boards and prosecutors. Wall Street Journal article here.

At first glance, this makes sense but there are no boundaries.  This isn't about getting sex offenders off of the streets. Old DNA can be used by law enforcement and prosecutors for any reason whatsoever to build a case against a suspect on any kind of case - not just sex cases.

Let's say John Doe's DNA was found on a woman in 1988 that now matches John Doe. (At the time, the samples were preserved but not tested until after the statute of limitations on prosecution had passed.) Now, over 20 years later, John is arrested for a non-violent crime, possession of a controlled substance. Immediately upon arrest, law enforcement has access to his DNA "match" on a 20 year old case. And let's say there have been a few unsolved rapes in the area with no positive ID on the rape kits. But let's say John Doe is a 5'10" black man with braids and dark skin. And the suspect in the recent cases also matches that description.

Rest assured, John Doe will be charged with the recent rapes.  The police and prosecutors can and will use the old DNA information as a reason to charge John. The prosecutor will tell the bond court judge in aggravation that John's DNA matched the DNA of a victim from 20 years ago. And how about at trial? Will the judge allow the prosecutors to tell the jury about the 20 year old case even though John was never charged?

I am all for getting sexual predators off of the streets. I don't want a rapist who wasn't caught to jump me in Lincoln Park! But, this new law is against the interest of justice. DNA is just one link to a puzzle. It is not the end-all-be-all. Just because a man's DNA is found on a woman reporting a rape, that does not mean he raped her.  Maybe it was consensual but she got mad at him and reported him to the police? Maybe he had consensual sex with her and then she was raped by another man? Whatever the reason, every person is entitled to their day in court. 

I recently had a client who was accused of sexual assault. The alleged victim was a girl who said my client raped her.  His blood was found on her bedroom window. His DNA was on her sheets. Looks like a slam-dunk case for the prosecution, right? Wrong. He had apparently been having sex with the girl for months. One night, when her father came home, he jumped out the window. Several months later, her father found out about their relationship and so she made the rape allegation to protect herself. 

This law has the opportunity to grow legs. Does that mean fingerprints found at a murder scene can soon be entered into a database? This database can easily expand beyond DNA in old rape cases. 

And what about our privacy rights? Now, a person's DNA will be in a database without their knowledge or ability to challenge its validity. In Illinois, the state cannot obtain one's DNA unless he/she has been convicted of a felony offense.

DNA does not mean "Do Not Argue (because you are guilty)." Every person is entitled to confront their accuser. Ever person is entitled to due process. This law takes away those rights. 

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

A-ROD PROTECTING MEN UPSTAIRS: HE SAYS SUBSTANCES FROM PUERTO RICO BUT I DON'T BUY IT

New York Yankees' Alex Rodriguez talks to reporters about his use of a banned substance during a news conference at the team's spring training baseball complex at George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, February 17, 2009. REUTERS/Steve Nesius (UNITED STATES)Today, A-Rod met a mass of reporters for the first time since his interview where he admitted to using banned substances in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Article here.

As I said in my previous blog, I commend A-Rod for opening up about his use and recognizing his behavior was immature and wrong.

BUT...

A-Rod has now totally shifted any questioning of the behavior of the Rangers' staff entirely to his own, independent behavior. I see right through the shift. You know the old adage, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Obviously, A-Rod is no longer being paid by the Rangers; however, he's still an employee of a team and now he does not want to throw those who pay him under the bus. Sure, some can call it self-preservation but I call it flat-out sad.  He has chosen to be the fall guy for the organization of professional baseball.

I previously shared my personal knowledge of the pressures placed upon professional players by the men upstairs all the way down to those who work in the locker room. Blog here. In A-Rod's interview, he talks about the pressures. He takes responsibility for his "ignorance" but he also mentions "nutritionists, doctors and trainers." He is a bit vague when he makes this statement about them. Does he mean they gave him certain banned substances directly or or did they simply suggest them to him with a wink?

Sure, A-Rod is probably telling the truth about getting some random substance in Puerto Rico. But he failed to elaborate about the pressures from inside the locker room. He failed to talk about those trainers, doctors and nutritionists. Why? Because he has decided, for whatever reason, to take the fall for the organization as a whole.

When is society going to start questioning the teams? When are we going to restrict the number of cortisone injections? Why do we not recognize the abuse of cortisone by team doctors on players? According to Wikipedia, "Cortisone is one of several end products of a process called steroidogenesis. This process starts with the synthesis of cholesterol which then proceeds through a series of modifications in the adrenal gland (suprarenal) to become any one of many steroid hormones." I am not a doctor but hmmm, it looks like cortisone creates a process that involves steroid hormones! How is the abuse of cortisone ok? Because it's administered by the team doctors?

Sure, A-Rod's urine came up "dirty" but there were plenty of people who knew all about what he was taking for enhance his performance. Either they suggested the "Boli" and he will not take them down with him or he was also taking other substances suggested by the team and he has chosen not to rat them out too.

THE COCA-COLA ANALOGY

A-Rod was a PRODUCT of the team; thus, the team knew of everything that went into his body to make him their thoroughbred racing horse. Just like Coca-Cola is a product. Scientists, chemists and investors and a businessman came together to make the best, secret-formula beverage that would make them the most amount of money and out-sell any other competitor's beverage. Turn that Coca-Cola into a player like A-Rod and turn the founder of Coca-Cola into the Texas Rangers.  Both the Coca-Cola and A-Rod now look the same: both have secret "ingredients" that make them better than their competitors.

We must stop blaming A-Rod entirely.  (No, I'm not saying he shouldn't be scrutinized.) But until we shift the spotlight from the player to the organization as a whole, the pressures placed upon the players and the use of performance enhancing drugs (including vicodin, cortisone, as well) will continue forever.

 www.tamaraholder.com & www.xpunged.com