A Not So Perfect Match

How Near-DNA Matches Can Incriminate Relatives Of Criminals

(CBS)  This segment was originally broadcast on April 1, 2007. It was updated on July 15, 2007.

There's a new saying in law enforcement circles these days: don't do the crime if your brother's doing time. And the reason for that is the power of DNA.

As 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, every state in this country collects DNA from convicted felons and loads it into computer databases, all linked together by the FBI. When detectives find DNA at a crime scene, they run it through that database looking for a perfect match. You see this on crime shows all the time.

But sometimes a search yields a not so perfect match but a partial match, in which case it's clear that the felon in the database did not commit the crime. But the DNA is so similar, maybe their father, mother, or brother did.

This raises a dilemma: should police start investigating those family members, or is that going too far?

---

"These are important scientific leads that need to be run down. And the fact that we can't run them down in this country I think is shameful," says Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney of Denver, Colo.

Morrissey runs one of the most aggressive cold case projects in the country. On three separate occasions over the last few years, his team ran DNA from unsolved rapes through the DNA database and came up with partial hits.

In these three cases, Morrissey says there wasn't a perfect match, but that the matches were very close.

Morrissey wanted the names of those felons, so he could investigate their family members, but he was told that FBI policy prohibits states from sharing names with one another unless it’s a perfect match.

"This isn't car break-ins. These are the type of people that will attack women. And continually do it until you catch them. And I think that the FBI, my office, the Denver Police Department, owe it to victims, and potential victims to run down these leads," Morrissey argues.

60 Minutes asked Angelo Della Manna, head of DNA analysis for the state of Alabama, for a crash course in how DNA profiles and matches work.

He showed Stahl the DNA profile of one individual. In a visual profile, one can see 13 pairs of peaks, or "alleles," which are then represented as numbers. One number in each pair comes from the mother; one from the father.

"When you look at this, can you tell me what color eyes that person has, or how tall they are? Or anything like that?" Stahl asks.

"No, not at all," Della Manna says. "The areas that we look at are commonly referred to as in the junk DNA."

When Della Manna runs a sample from a crime scene through the DNA database and gets a perfect match, the numbers are identical in both profiles. But sometimes he gets a partial match, where all but a few numbers are the same.

"These partial matches kind of hit you between the eyes and you say, 'Well, it's obviously not this person.' But when you look at the profile as a whole, there's a lot of sharing there," he explains. "Statistically, there's a strong likelihood that you're looking at the biological relative of the rapist or the source of this crime scene sample."

Criminologists have long known that crime tends to run in families: one study found that 51 percent of inmates in state prisons had a family member who had also been incarcerated. In fact, a statistical analysis last year in the journal "Science" found that if we used our DNA database to deliberately look for family members, it could yield 40 percent more hits.

"Now you’re subjecting a whole new class of innocent people to genetic surveillance by the government," argues Stephen Mercer, a Maryland attorney who specializes in issues involving DNA.

"With this new technology, no one has ever considered, 'Well, if my brother's DNA ends up in the database, and he's forfeited his privacy rights by becoming a convicted felon, has he also forfeited my privacy rights, as well, as a wholly innocent family member,'" Mercer says. "That puts me under lifelong genetic surveillance."

Speaking with D.A. Morrissey, Stahl points out, "The other side of the argument is that this is genetic surveillance and that it invades innocent people's privacy. And that this is America and we don't do that."

"Let me give you an example. Say we have a hit and run accident where someone was killed. And we have witnesses that say, 'This is the color of the car. This is the style of the car. But I only got the first three license plate numbers' … Only a partial. What should the police do? Just say, 'Oh no, it's only partial, so we're not gonna do anything.' Or should they go to your motor vehicle database and they may talk to 20 people that weren't involved in the accident at all. And I'll tell ya, most of those people are gonna tell ya, 'Thanks for looking into this. Because we hope you solve the case,'" Morrissey says.

[erlesb]

Ms Stahl
The problem with Mr. Hunt's case was that there was no evidence to convict him in the first place and He spent almost 20 years for a crime He did not commit. After 10 years when the Judge was told there was no proof of Mr. Hunt being the person who committed this crime He basically said oh well and left him in for another 10 years. Minorities will be in big trouble if this science is implamented.
Earl
Nashville

[klfoster31]

I apologize in advance for my comments, but Mr. Mercer I question your understanding of what "freedom" and "rights" truly mean. Is it not the basic idea why we have a judicial system to protect us? Then why does it appear that you are hindering the basic functional purpose of our judicial system, by regarding convicted felons the right to privacy? They gave up that right the moment they choose to commit a crime! You abide the law and you are granted the freedom and rights that our Constitution stands for; however, you deliberately give up that right when you are proven guilty in the court of law. How much more do we as law abiding citizens have to put up with Mr. Mercer? Protect the rapist, protect the drug trafficker, protect the murderer, but at what expense, our children? Once again, our system that stands to protects us, is bombard by foolish "educated" individuals. This is not a question of racism or stereotypes, it's a reminder of what we as country were founded on.

[phagan24]

The gentleman representing opposition to the proliferation of DNA Testing as it applies to solving crimes, and releasing innocent people from wrongful incarceration is just so wrong!!! I think he needs stop thinking as an attorney and think as a victim or a victim's family member. Then I'm sure his tune would change, unless he is employed by the ACLU, and then there is no hope. I'll light a candle for him the next time I go to church. Thanks for allowing me to "vent." Dr. Paul K. Hagan, Jr.
Peachtree City, GA

[gqpublic]

This is absolutely going too far. In fact, it's criminal. I am 1 of 10 siblings. Of the 10, 1 sibling has had contact with the penal system. The remaining 9 have lived productive, law abiding lives. Your story implies that a partial DNA match should result in violating the privacy rights of the rest of us. This is infuriating for 2 reasons. 1st, there is rampant incompetence in gov't entities, as you yourselves have frequently reported. Most people have little confidence that any such sharing of DNA information can be managed with any degree of responsibility. 2ndly, there are so many abuses of accountability in gov't, we can't trust that the shared information wouldn't be used as an excuse to harass people. Perhaps some anti-war or human rights activist or maybe someone who investigating a story that is unfavorable for the powers that be. It's a short leap from good intentions to abuse of power. And to use the example of Anthony Brown as a reason to invade the general public's privacy rights is a travesty. Why didn't you address the fact that his conviction sans any physical evidence was a blatant example of racism? So are you suggesting African Americans have to prove their innocence in order not to be convicted of a crime? That's what your reporting inferred. What happened to the preponderance of innocence unless proven otherwise? If you can't put forth a better reason for DNA sharing, you should have condemned it

I can not agree with Mr. Mercer. As the story clearly showed if you are not a perfect match you should not be found guilty. If you have not left DNA at a crime scene, and are not guilty of a crime you should not be worried. You will NOT come up a perfect DNA match. In Mr. Hunt's case it appears he should not have been linked to the crime initially. When advanced DNA testing became available he certainly should have been released then. The poor management of his case seems apparent by the large monetary settlement offered to him. Unfortunately no amount of money makes up for his years behind bars.

[djconklin]

After 10 years when the Judge was told there was no proof of Mr. Hunt being the person who committed this crime He basically said oh well and left him in for another 10 years.

Correction: the DNA evidence showed that he did not commit the rape. There was no exonerating evidence that said he did not commit the murder.

[gqpublic]

Correction: I was referring to Mr. Hunt as the example of the wrongly convicted man; not Anthony Brown.

[kmr83159]

Why does everything have to be an issue of racism? This has nothing to do with racism. Recently there was a case in Bufalo NY where a man spent 23 years in prison for supposedly commtting 2 rapes. He is in the process of being exonerated when the alledged rapist committed a recent crime and they reopened the case. THe DNA has always been held at a hospital in the city but was just recently located an identifed notas his but the other person who was recently arrested for rape and murder. By the way, both men are white. If this innocent man's DNA was checked years ago when DNA testing first was used, this poor victim of the alledged rapist and murdererd may not have ever happened The sharing of near matches is not an evasion of anyone's privacy, it's a protection of their life and their families lives. I think if you set parameters on how the information is used and not abused it can work for all of our protection. Let's keep color out of it. Let's get as many innocent people out of jail and the right person in.

[drnovlamas]

Yes, this is GOING TOO FAR!!! ABSOLUTELY!!

[dog-x8]

Everyone should have their DNA taken at birth. In 60 yrs. they would be able to arrest the right person every time.(if they left dna) No more innocent people being arrested. It might also be a deterrent since they know they'll be identified.If everyones DNA was taken then no one could complain about their 'rights' being taken.-------- Sorry Mercer, you'r sooooo wrong on this one!! You'd prob. be the first one wanting a partial DNA if YOUR MaMa or sister was raped and stabbed to death. Think about it! All that 'RIGHTS' cr@p would fly right out the window!

[dog-x8]

kmr83159 you are so right about racism. If they had everyones DNA, well, --if the shoe fits----

[ndg1979]

Amazing how you are all worried about your privacy. Do you realize that right now - YOU HAVE NONE!! All of your "private" information is just a click or a dollar away for anyone who wants it.

Do you think that the government is keeping your information private? Nonsense. Do you honestly believe the Patriot Act is patriotic towards Americans? There is nothing private in this world anymore. Look at YouTube and mySpace for example.

As for this becoming a case of racism - NOT A CHANCE. If the African-American population is freaked about the fact that 3/4 of the prison population is black, then they should look at why that is. There is something ridiculously wrong here. And saying it is a matter of civil or any rights is also wrong - they are no longer slaves and have been granted ALL the same rights as anyone else - including the right to be convicted for wrongdoing.

Time to wake up America - let DNA free the innocent and charge the guilty - no matter what. If you are innocent - you have NOTHING - NOTHING to worry about!!

[dog-x8]

ndg1979, AMEN!

[iamspace]

If DNA is to be used for implicating people in crimes, then what is to stop ANYONE from collection a sample from ANYONE else, and planting it as a frame?

[iamspace]

If DNA is to be used for implicating people in crimes, then what is to stop ANYONE from collection a sample from ANYONE else, and planting it as a frame?

[spencer8027]

Guilty until proven Innocence
The concern I have is not that DNA would not help solve crimes faster and efficiently. The concern is on the application of this law. The Patriot Act has been abused and Law Enforcement agents have used that tool to spy on innocent people and most of whom, their lives were destroyed. Yes! Our privacy has gone to the dogs, but I won't give them additional tool to harass and abuse innocent people. Saying we have privacy is saying that 9/11 happened because the terrorists were jealous of our freedom. Law Enforcement officers need to be properly trained, paid a decent wage, and send out there to investigate crimes. Some of you are talking out of two corners of your mouth until it happens to you, then you would want justice. Ask some innocent Muslims and Hindus who have been the major targets since 9/11 how their private lives have been. This is not a Race issue; it's an issue of proper method of crime investigation. People are supposed to be Innocent until evidence proves them guilty. We have a very flawed criminal Justice system and the sensationalism of the media adds additional salt to the wound. To all the non-black people on this site, I suggest you open your eyes to the Race issue and honestly look at things without prejudice. There is Racism...in this country you have to be blind not to see it. There are Black Racists and as well as White racists.

[anopinion1]

If you are innocent - you have NOTHING - NOTHING to worry about!!
Posted by ndg1979 at 01:37 AM : Apr 02, 2007

EXACTLY, They SHOULD be able to go after family members when the partial match is seen. Its not like they would be sending a swat team into all of the persons family members houses and demanding dna samples. Their is other ways. Like the cigarette butt trick from the article.

and as ndg1979 said IF YOU ARE INNOCENT THE WHO CARES IF ANYONE MAY HAVE BEEN WATCHING YOU FOR A DAY or 2 TRYING TO GET A DNA SAMPLE. Maybe their work will save one of your family members from getting raped or killed by one of these psychos.

[agnim]

"Which raises a dilemma: should police start investigating those family members, or is that going too far?"

Well duh!

Of course you check the family member! It would be dumb not to.

For better or for worse, we do NATURALLY ride the coattails of those who are near and dear.

[pdx007]

That guy Stephen Mercer is wrong to characterize this as "survellience."

Survellience implies that you are under suspicion before something happens. A crime would have to be committed first before DNA testing would come into play. Again, what is important is the sequence of events. Nobody is asking for the DNA of relatives who are already in the databank. That would be profiling and wrong. A crime would have to be committed and a close DNA match would have to occur first. THAT is perfectly reasonable.

[jccamelot]

I am sorry Mr. Mercer wasn't given more time to expand on his side. As a family member that has been through this Family DNA, I can tell you that YES, they can KICK your door in and YES they can handcuff you AND take your DNA against your will. It doesn't matter if you have been a law abiding citizen all your life.
Does anybody in their right mind think the FBI is going to destroy their DNA when they are finised? Not to leave out the State's sample as well.
I would truly love to hear more from Mr. Mercer on this subject.

[njva17420]

I think we heard enough from attorney Mercer, who just seemed to project an ACLU-type position (i.e. civil rights without civil responsibilities, as it often seems). I would be more interested in hearing about the actual experiences that Jccamelot and others have alluded to before using them as a basis for rejecting the DNA-sharing proposal.

[heywoodfloyd-2009]

I cannot believe I am the first to offer this observation; someone else must have suggested something similar and I just missed it.

One of the interviewees suggested a comparison of DNA typing to automobile license plates, saying that everyone has those and the police can look up that information any time they need to. The conclusion to jump to is, of course, that the analogy holds for DNA typing, as well. I%u2019m sorry to say the analogy does not hold.

Everyone%u2019s car has a license plate to show that the car is properly registered to someone entitled (literally entitled) to own it %u2013 indicating all the requisite fees have been paid and insurance is in place. We are not obligated to display or even maintain any credentials for our DNA. To do so would amount (if I may be allowed my own analogy) to a requirement for a trip plan every time we took our car away from the curb %u2013 listing where we were going and when we could be expected to arrive. I, for one, do not care to submit my travel plans for anyone's approval when I drive my car, and I don%u2019t imagine anyone else does, either. Nor do I care to care to have my DNA typed and catalogued with any government agency, %u201Cjust in case.%u201D

I do not have an alternative to offer, but I will not willingly provide my DNA for wholesale speculative data mining. All our experience with government has shown that the power to gather information about us is always abused and never relinquished.

[heywoodfloyd-2009]

I cannot believe I am the first to offer this observation; someone else must have suggested something similar and I just missed it.

One of the interviewees suggested a comparison of DNA typing to automobile license plates, saying that everyone has those and the police can look up that information any time they need to. The conclusion to jump to is, of course, that the analogy holds for DNA typing, as well. I%u2019m sorry to say the analogy does not hold.

Everyone%u2019s car has a license plate to show that the car is properly registered to someone entitled (literally entitled) to own it %u2013 indicating all the requisite fees have been paid and insurance is in place. We are not obligated to display or even maintain any credentials for our DNA. To do so would amount (if I may be allowed my own analogy) to a requirement for a trip plan every time we took our car away from the curb %u2013 listing where we were going and when we could be expected to arrive. I, for one, do not care to submit my travel plans for anyone's approval when I drive my car, and I don%u2019t imagine anyone else does, either. Nor do I care to care to have my DNA typed and catalogued with any government agency, %u201Cjust in case.%u201D

I do not have an alternative to offer, but I will not willingly provide my DNA for wholesale speculative data mining. All our experience with government has shown that the power to gather information about us is always abused and never relinquished.

[klingon69]

hmmm;
Seems on the Duke rape case, all three were exonerated from having committed the alleged rape, but due to a twisted DA, who was just looking to get reelected, all 3 were still held.
Seems the alledged victim did have traces on dna from 5 different sources, but none from the 3 accused.
I feel that even with dna matching, there will still be those who will pursue for a conviction regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

[njva17420]

HeywoodFloyd's analogy is no more logical than the one he (she?) criticized. Analogies -- however helpful to the ones making them -- are usually sufficiently flawed to be useless in an argument or debate.

[emmac6]

They should use DNA in any way they can to help catch a violent criminal like a rapist or murderer. Non-violent crimes I can understand withholding the DNA evidence but for violent crimes there should absolutely be able to use the partial DNA.

[dcginsberg]

I think both sides make valid points and the question is whether they can be reconciled. I suggest a compromise where partial matches could be used only for certain defined serious cases, and only with the approval of a judge, and only for approved relatives (i.e. in a rape case you could not test a suspects' sister just to see if you can link her to different crime).

To protect privacy, non-perfect matches could not be kept. Some people understandably don't trust the government. At least a partial safeguard would be that if a prosecutor later arrests one of those relatives for some other reason, and they catch the person from looking up their DNA in the database, a judge could throw out the case because the evidence was illegally obtained.

There is potential for this to be abused, but it seems like a fair balance.

[dcginsberg]

I think both sides make valid points and the question is whether they can be reconciled. I suggest a compromise where partial matches could be used only for certain defined serious cases, and only with the approval of a judge, and only for approved relatives (i.e. in a rape case you could not test a suspect's sister just to see if you can link her to different crime).

To protect privacy, non-perfect matches could not be kept. Some people understandably don't trust the government. At least a partial safeguard would be that if a prosecutor later arrests one of those relatives for some other reason, and they catch the person from looking up their DNA in the database, a judge could throw out the case because the evidence was illegally obtained.

There is potential for this to be abused, but it seems like a fair balance.

[dcginsberg]

I think both sides make valid points and the question is whether they can be reconciled. I suggest a compromise where partial matches could be used only for certain defined serious cases, and only with the approval of a judge, and only for approved relatives (i.e. in a rape case you could not test a suspect's sister just to see if you can link her to different crime).

To protect privacy, non-perfect matches could not be kept. Some people understandably don't trust the government. At least a partial safeguard would be that if a prosecutor later arrests one of those relatives for some other reason, and they catch the person from looking up their DNA in the database, a judge could throw out the case because the evidence was illegally obtained.

There is potential for this to be abused, but it seems like a fair balance.

[davidel1]

I yhink Lesley Stahl had a go0od point raising partial auto license plate numbers as an analogy to partial deny matches.The analogy is een closer if one recalls that in many states such as California, the first four characters in a license plate tell a lot about the economic position of the owners

0191 very old car-- very poor owner?
1ABC old car poor owner
5ZYX very new car-- affluent owner
RAy1 PERSONALIZED PLATE-- OLDER MONEY - PROUD OWNER
i GUESS MANY FORMS OF EVIDENCE HAVE SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC BAGGAGE J
JUSR ASDNA does..