The Grand Jury inquired how the District Attorney’s (DA) Office determines when to prosecute sexual assault cases, and how many such cases are prosecuted annually. The DA’s Office was unable to provide meaningful statistics regarding the number of all rape cases it handled for the last five years with the final dispositions (guilty, acquitted, dismissed, etc.).

The Grand Jury gathered data demonstrating that instances of rape steadily increased in the last five years in San Mateo County; fewer cases were submitted to the District Attorney’s Office by law enforcement; and in the last two years the DA’s Office declined to prosecute half of the cases received, but it’s conviction rate for those cases prosecuted is approximately 90%.

The DA must be certain it can demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a case is pursued. The Grand Jury was told that how well a victim will come across in court often makes a difference whether a case is prosecuted or not. The District Attorney’s Office cannot assure each victim of sexual assault that the crime perpetrated against them will be prosecuted. The victim’s cooperation and ability to produce timely physical evidence, be convincing, or have corroboration of the circumstances of the incident, is a major factor in determining to prosecute.

Issue: Do San Mateo County law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office handle sexual assault cases in a manner that vigorously pursues criminal justice for all involved parties?

During the Grand Jury investigation of how forensic evidence is handled in San Mateo County, the volume of rape cases reported by each law enforcement agency in the county for the last five years, and handled by the District Attorney’s Office for years 2000 and 2001, was obtained. Interviews with the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and several police chiefs and their staffs provided considerable information regarding how biological evidence is obtained, stored, and sometimes tested in sexual assault cases. Details were provided regarding how decisions are made to file charges and prosecute such crimes.

The information obtained provided findings not directly related to the forensic evidence investigation, so the Grand Jury has prepared this separate report of findings and recommendations associated with the handling of sexual assault cases in the county.

The Grand Jury asked the District Attorney’s Office (DA) to provide the number of all rape cases prosecuted by year for the last five years, with the final dispositions (guilty, acquitted, dismissed, etc.). The DA obtained data from court records by branch, but because of the fee to retrieve the data, only information from 2000 and 2001 was retrieved. This data was not reliable because cases overlapped in each court branch and over calendar years. The DA does not track all of its cases by type of case and final disposition. In February 2000 the Deputy District Attorney – Sexual Assault Unit began a log of sexual assault cases and provided the Grand Jury that data through 2001.