When it comes to sexual assault investigations, speed and strategy can make all the difference. Today, jurisdictions across the country are demonstrating how innovation—through tools like Direct-to-DNA testing strategies, forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), familial DNA searches and John Doe indictments—are helping law enforcement not only solve cold cases but stop serial offenders before they harm again.
Why Serial Offenders Must Be Identified Early
One of the most alarming truths about sexual assault is how often it’s repeated. Studies estimate that roughly 40% of sexual offenders are serial perpetrators, and those who tend to commit more crimes overall.¹ On average, serial sexual offenders have nearly 10 arrests on record—compared to 6.6 for non-serial offenders.²
Stopping these individuals earlier means protecting communities and preventing escalation and further victimization. That’s where technology and forward-thinking strategies come into play.
What Is a John Doe Indictment and Why Does It Matter?
In many states, statutes of limitation still apply to sexually motivated crimes, meaning investigators may have only a narrow window—sometimes as little as ten years—to identify and charge a suspect. But what happens when a DNA profile is developed and there’s no name attached to it?
A John Doe indictment is a legal mechanism that allows prosecutors to file charges against an unidentified person using their DNA profile. This strategy effectively stops the clock on the statute of limitations, preserving the right to prosecute when that person is eventually identified.
This tool gives forensic teams and investigators critical time to apply advanced technologies like familial DNA searching, forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), or even wait for a future CODIS hit.
A compelling example comes from Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where the G.O.L.D. Unit (Genetic Operations Linking DNA) has used this strategy to preserve and pursue cold-case sexual assaults. In seven recent cases, prosecutors indicted unknown DNA profiles tied to unsolved rapes, giving investigators time to apply familial DNA searches and FIGG to identify likely suspects. Traditional STR testing later confirmed the matches.³
This strategy is part of what has made Cuyahoga a national model for innovation in SAK DNA testing.
“900 indictments is stunning. Hundreds of dedicated investigators, attorneys, scientists, elected officials, advocates, and many more made this happen. We are on the cusp of timely testing dramatically reducing serial rapists and making communities safer. But it takes dedication from top to bottom.”
– Mike Cariola, CEO, Bode Technology
John Doe indictments don’t just pause the legal clock—they create space for science and strategy to work in tandem. They offer a second chance at justice in cases that might otherwise be unfairly lost to time.
Understanding Familial DNA Searching
While FIGG often makes headlines, familial DNA searching is a different, but equally powerful tool. Instead of looking in public genealogy databases, this method involves a deliberate search of state-level CODIS DNA profiles to find close biological relatives of an unknown suspect when no direct match is found in the database.
Currently, approximately 17 states permit familial DNA searches for select violent crimes. One of the earliest and most established programs is run by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). Launched in 2010, it was designed to support investigations into unsolved homicides, sexual assaults, and other serious offenses.
Implementing familial searching requires significant coordination. Texas’s approach includes:
- Specialized software tools and training,
- Validation testing using actual database samples,
- Y-STR testing to confirm potential familial links.4
It also requires dedicated resources and funding. The program has been supported in part by SAKI, which has helped cover overtime for lab personnel, provided reagents and Y-STR kits, and supported the collection and testing of reference samples from potential suspects.5
Familial DNA searching serves as a bridge between traditional CODIS hits and the broader reach of FIGG. When used together with strategies like John Doe indictments, these tools dramatically increase the chances of identifying violent offenders—especially in cases where the suspect’s DNA has never been entered into a criminal database.
Streamlining the Process: The Power of a Direct-to-DNA Approach
Many crime laboratories still begin SAK testing by screening for the presence of semen—a process that can take hours and doesn’t always predict whether probative DNA will be recovered. For labs needing to test thousands of kits with limited capacity, this step can quickly become a bottleneck.
Direct-to-DNA screening—also known as male DNA screening or Y-screening—offers a more efficient and scalable alternative. Modern quantification kits allow labs to determine how much total human and male DNA a sample contains in under an hour. Because this quantification is already a standard part of DNA processing, it can replace traditional body fluid screening and be fully automated for high-throughput workflows.
This approach has proven especially valuable in cases involving:
- Digital penetration or non-ejaculatory assaults,
- Azoospermic offenders who test negative in semen fluid screening,
- Aged or poorly stored kits where enzyme-based screening may degrade over time.
Bode Technology was a pioneer in this method, first deploying Direct-to-DNA during its work on New York City’s backlog of 12,000 sexual assault kits in the early 2000s.
“I was hired to eliminate a backlog of sexual assault kits in New York City. At the time, New York had identified a backlog of 12,000 cases. Our approach was different. We took a direct-to-DNA approach. The goal was to obtain a DNA profile, so, we went straight to DNA [on] everything. It was revolutionary at the time and that was over 20 years ago. Today, there are commercial kits that enable that same technology that we developed. Laboratories across the country now use our direct-to-DNA approach as a standard preferred approach to processing sexual assault kits.”
— Mike Cariola, CEO, Bode Technology
The benefits of this approach have been proven not just in theory, but in practice. When Florida passed legislation in 2016 requiring all sexual assault kits from reporting victims to be tested, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) knew they’d be facing a surge in case submissions. Rather than rely on traditional serological screening, FDLE implemented Direct-to-DNA workflows across six state labs—automating extraction steps and improving turnaround time.
In one comparison, the Jacksonville lab found that traditional screening yielded CODIS-eligible profiles in just over 60% of cases, while Direct-to-DNA pushed that number up to 85%. Over two years, they tested more than 5,500 kits and achieved 99.9% compliance with the state’s 120-day deadline—demonstrating how this method not only saves time, but also improves outcomes for survivors and public safety.
Direct-to-DNA has never been shown to be less sensitive than biological screening and has been endorsed by the SAFER Working Group as a preferred frontline method.6
When paired with strategies like FIGG, familial DNA searching, and John Doe indictments, it enables real-time results and accelerates arrests.
For investigators, that means faster answers and fewer missed opportunities.
But success isn’t just about lab techniques, it’s about coordination. Effective training and communication between forensic scientists, law enforcement, and prosecutors ensures that these tools are used strategically, meet legal requirements, and support the ultimate goal: justice.
Don’t Overlook Partially Tested Kits
Much of the national conversation about sexual assault kit (SAK) testing rightly focuses on previously unsubmitted kits. But there’s another important category that deserves attention: partially tested kits.
These are kits where limited testing—often decades ago—produced only serological screening results, partial or inconclusive DNA profiles, or missed key evidence. Sometimes, only certain items were tested due to technological/resource limits or case strategy. Other times, full testing wasn’t pursued after one suspect was identified, even when multiple assailants were involved.
A recent case out of Salt Lake County, Utah, underscores the ramifications of leaving kits only partially tested. In 2006, a 16-year-old survivor reported that she had been kidnapped and assaulted by two men. However, once DNA testing identified one suspect, the remaining evidence in the kit was not further examined. For over 17 years, the second assailant remained unidentified and uncharged—until advances in DNA technology allowed the untested evidence to be re-analyzed. The result: charges were filed against Jose Luis Pina Cruz in February 2024, and both men were sentenced in April 2025.7, 8
This case highlights why partially tested kits must be revisited. Tools like STRMix, Direct-to-DNA, familial DNA searching, and FIGG are now revealing leads that older methods couldn’t provide. For cases involving multiple offenders, degraded evidence, or missed opportunities, modern reanalysis can make a huge difference.
By returning to these kits, agencies aren’t just solving cold cases—they’re holding violent offenders accountable and giving long-waiting survivors the answers they deserve.
Looking Ahead: Preventing Backlogs and Repeat Offenses
The best way to eliminate a backlog—or prevent repeat offenses—is to stop untested SAKs from accumulating in the first place. That means investing in proactive, proven strategies that prioritize speed, coordination amongst stakeholders and results.
Jurisdictions can strengthen their systems by:
- Prioritizing real-time testing to reduce investigative delays,
- Adopting Direct-to-DNA testing to streamline processing and scale capacity,
- Equipping investigators with tools like FIGG, familial DNA, and STRMix
- Using John Doe indictments (as applicable) to preserve prosecutorial options before time runs out.
These aren’t experimental ideas—they’re working solutions that are solving cases, protecting communities, and giving survivors the answers they deserve.
Sources:
-
Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S., & Cote, A. (2010). False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252707.pdf
-
RTI International. (2022). Foundations for Cold Case Investigations (SAKI Webinar). Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. https://www.sakitta.org/webinars/docs/SAKI%20Foundations%20for%20CC%20Investigations%20V8_redacted%20version_11.pdf
-
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. (2024). G.O.L.D. Unit Identifies Seven Cold-Case Sexual Assault Offenders Utilizing Familial DNA and Forensic Genetic Genealogy. https://www.ccprosecutor.us/gold-unit-identifies-7-cold-case-offenders-familial-dna-forensic-genetic-genealogy/
-
Gooding, W., Molina, B., & Williamson, R. (2023). Familial Searching: A Tool for Identifying Serial Offenders (SAKI Webinar). RTI International. (Document referenced in: “FINAL – Familial Searching – Gooding Molina Williamson Combined SAKI”) Familial Searching – Gooding, Molina, Williamson
-
RTI International. (n.d.). SAKI Toolkit Webinar Supplement: Familial DNA Searching Overview. Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. SAKI Webinar PDF
-
SAFER Working Group. (2023). Improving Laboratory Efficiency: A Direct-to-DNA Approach for Testing Sexual Assault Kits. SAKI Toolkit, Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. https://www.sakitta.org/toolkit/docs/Improving-Laboratory-Efficiency-A-Direct-to-DNA-Approach-for-Testing-Sexual-Assault-Kits.pdf
-
Gill, S. (2024, February 9). Salt Lake County District Attorney Files Charges Against Long-Unknown Co-Defendant. KUTV. https://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-county-district-attorney-files-charges-against-long-unknown-co-defendant-salt-lake-county-district-attorney-sim-gill-jose-luis-pina-cruz
-
MSN Staff. (2025, April 2). Two Men Sentenced in 2006 Kidnapping, Sexual Assault of Teenage Girl. MSN News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-men-sentenced-in-2006-kidnapping-sexual-assault-of-teenage-girl/