A Not So Perfect Match

How Near-DNA Matches Can Incriminate Relatives Of Criminals

(CBS)  Darryl Hunt in Winston-Salem, N.C., would agree, and not just for its potential to catch criminals, but for its power to set innocent people free.

Twenty-three years ago, Winston-Salem was shaken by a brutal killing: a young newspaper editor named Deborah Sykes was dragged to a grassy area, raped and stabbed 16 times. Although there was little to go on, Darryl Hunt was charged with first degree murder.

Investigators had no fingerprint and no blood, but they did have semen, which Hunt tells Stahl didn't match him.

The semen didn’t match his blood type – and yet, Hunt was convicted and sentenced to life. Ten years later, when DNA testing came along, it showed he was not the rapist. But to Hunt's astonishment, the judge said he still could have committed the murder, and sent him right back to prison.

He spent another nine years behind bars before the state ran the DNA from the crime scene through North Carolina’s database. That’s when things got interesting.

They got what seemed to be a hit to a convicted felon named Anthony Brown, but the sample was so old, it was degraded and the result inconclusive, so they flew the sample to Angelo Della Manna’s state-of-the-art lab in Alabama, which produced a clear profile that revealed that Anthony Brown was not the rapist.

But the profile was remarkably close and led Della Manna to wonder if Brown had a brother.

He told his counterparts in North Carolina that they might want to check and see if Anthony Brown had any brothers. FBI policy doesn’t prohibit a state from pursuing a partial match within its own borders. What he heard back the next day was not what he expected.

"He has 11 brothers," Della Manna remembers. "Six of those brothers were deceased. However, there was one brother who was in a neighboring county on a misdemeanor parole violation."

The investigators' next move was right out of CSI. "They offered him a cigarette. He took that cigarette and then finished the interview. And they took that cigarette butt to the laboratory, ran that very quickly. And it matched at all 13. And then that generated the arrest warrant," Della Manna explains.

The man who actually raped and murdered Deborah Sykes was Anthony Brown's older brother, Willard. Confronted with the DNA evidence, he confessed. And Darryl Hunt, after 19 years, was finally set free.

But to some, even a wonderful end can’t justify the means.

"If the measure of reasonableness is going to be, 'We got the right guy,' then every search is gonna be reasonable," says Stephen Mercer. "In the name of solving crimes, let's just start going around and kicking down doors. And issuing general search warrant for high crime neighborhoods and randomly searching and seizing people. Cause you know what? We're gonna solve a lot of crime. No doubt that will be a benefit. But, what's the cost?"

"I know that there’s people that talk about privacy rights and this, but I think of two things: one is the victims," says Darryl Hunt. "There'll be more victims if this person is not caught. And the other is the person that could be falsely accused and sitting in prison."

The city of Winston-Salem offered Hunt an apology and $1.65 million to compensate him for his years in prison. From his office overlooking the old county courthouse, he now works to help other former inmates re-enter society. And he’s thankful that North Carolina isn’t a state where a partial DNA match can’t be pursued.

"If it wasn't for this then I wouldn't be here," he says.

---

After months of pushing, Denver D.A. Mitch Morrissey won a partial victory: the FBI has instituted an interim policy that leaves it up to the states to decide whether to share information with one another in the event of a partial match. He’s hoping that’ll help solve his three rape cases.

[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..

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[dog-x8]

ndg1979, AMEN!

[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]

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