The Link Between the SAMFE and Police Perceptions of Victim Credibility

• Published date: 01 January 2022
• Date: 01 January 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/15570851211012468
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851211012468

Feminist Criminology

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15570851211012468

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Article

The Link Between the SAMFE

and Police Perceptions of

Victim Credibility

Lilly Yu1, Kelly Walsh2, and Janine M. Zweig2

Abstract

While research has documented the evidentiary significance of sexual assault medical

forensic exams (SAMFEs) to case processing, there has been less focus on SAMFEs’

relevance to extralegal case characteristics. This study, through focus groups with police

officers and prosecutors, illuminates the link between two important case processing

factors: the SAMFE and perceptions of victim credibility. The majority of respondent

narratives about the utility of the SAMFE point to how it strengthens or weakens

perceptions of victim credibility. This link points to the SAMFE’s important role in early

case processing before investigators send DNA evidence for forensic testing.

Keywords

sexual assault, sexual assault medical forensic exam, case processing, victim credibility,

policing

Introduction

As criminal legal system-based responses to sexual assaults have evolved over the

past several decades, debates between practitioners and researchers remain regard-

ing the best ways to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Changes in societal

attitudes toward victims (McMahon, 2011), investigative and prosecutorial tech-

niques, resources allocated to community responses (Zweig et al., 2021), and survi-

vors’ engagement in the criminal legal process (Office on Violence Against Women

[OVW], 2013) have contributed to a movement toward improved investigation and

prosecution methods that rely less on subjective biases toward victims and focus

1Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

2Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lilly Yu, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

Email: lillyyu@fas.harvard.edu

1012468

FCXXXX10.1177/15570851211012468Feminist CriminologyYu et al.

research-article

2021

2022, Vol. 17(1) 26 –49

Yu et al. 27

2 Feminist Criminology 00(0)

more on objective, probative evidence (Campbell et al., 2017). Central to these

efforts is the role of the sexual assault medical forensic exam (SAMFE) in investi-

gating and prosecuting criminal cases, revisiting cold cases, and ensuring justice for

past and future victims (OVW, 2013). As stories of large numbers of unsubmitted

and backlogged sexual assault kits (SAKs) have captured the attention of national

and local media (Quinlan, 2020), practitioners and researchers continue to debate

how SAMFE evidence should be considered and processed, including whether and

how to prioritize testing of large volumes of forensic evidence, how to follow up

with previously closed cases after forensic testing, and what practical role SAMFEs

play in investigative and prosecutorial decision-making (Campbell et al., 2017;

Spohn, 2016).

Despite the attention to SAMFE evidence in case processing, many studies also

show that forensic evidence is not the most important or salient factor in sexual assault

cases. While we know that SAK-produced forensic evidence can be important, often

in its critical role in establishing sexual contact, SAK forensic evidence may not

always provide the “slam dunk” that investigators and prosecutors are looking for.

This is because most sexual assaults involve victims and perpetrators who know one

other (Black et al., 2011), eliminating the need to use DNA evidence from SAKs to

establish the identity of a suspect. Decisions to test SAKs can be triaged by the foren-

sic laboratories themselves, based on investigators’ and lab personnel’s perceptions of

what cases are “real” instances of sexual assault (Campbell & Fehler-Cabral, 2020).

Past research has also established a relationship between a SAMFE and case process-

ing outcomes that often occur before forensic testing, such as arrest of a suspect

(Schroeder & Elink-Schuurman-Laura, 2017).

What, then, is the role of the SAMFE and its associated evidence in case processing

before forensic testing and if there is an already identified suspect? Through inter-

views and focus groups in two northeastern jurisdictions in the United States, justice

system stakeholders responsible for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases

explain the key ways in which the SAMFE has utility. While respondents frequently

point to the forensic data’s utility in identifying suspects, all the other ways they iden-

tify the SAMFE to be helpful is related to how the SAMFE corroborates another key

factor in case processing: perceptions of victim credibility.

This study furthers the research on the sexual assault kit’s impact on case process-

ing and decision-making in several important ways. It extends our understanding of

the SAMFE beyond its forensic DNA evidence by showing how case processing

stakeholders attribute both legal and extralegal value to it. It examines the utility of the

SAMFE evidence early in case processing, before investigators submit SAMFE-

collected evidence for forensic testing. And it specifically points to the value of the

SAMFE in corroborating perceptions of victim credibility in several different ways,

including victims’ actions and behaviors around the SAMFE, corroborating expert

opinion and documentation of the victims’ actions, and explaining potential gaps in

victims’ memories that threaten their credibility. We establish this link by featuring

qualitative data from investigators and prosecutors, allowing these important decision-

makers to recount their own perceptions of the utility of the SAMFE in their work.