## Facts

- In 1976, Ollie George, a 19-year-old student, disappeared from a Sacramento shopping center after reporting her car would not start.
- Her brother’s car was later found at the shopping center with keys in the ignition and personal items inside; George was missing.
- George’s body was later discovered in a rural area; evidence indicated sexual assault and homicide.
- Biological evidence from the crime was preserved.
- In 2002, investigators used DNA testing on preserved evidence and obtained a match to Dennis Louis Nelson’s DNA profile with an extremely small random-match probability (described as “one in 930 sextillion” for an unrelated person).
- Nelson was charged decades after the crime, convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances and related sexual offenses, and sentenced to death.
- The case reached the Supreme Court of California on automatic review of the death judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the approximately 26-year precharge delay violated due process because it impaired the defense through loss of witnesses and faded evidence.
2. Whether the prosecution’s justification for delay—insufficient evidence to identify a suspect until later DNA technology and comparison became available—outweighed any proven prejudice.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting DNA population frequency statistics and permitting expert and prosecutorial characterizations that the match made it virtually impossible someone other than Nelson was the source.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence.
- The court held the precharge delay did not violate due process because the state’s justification (limits of forensic technology and lack of identifying evidence until DNA testing and comparison) outweighed any prejudice shown.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting DNA statistical evidence and allowing the jury to hear extremely low random-match probabilities and related explanatory comparisons.

## Legal Principles

- A due process claim based on preaccusation delay requires a showing of actual prejudice; if prejudice is shown, the court balances it against the prosecution’s justification for delay.
- Delay attributable to insufficient evidence to identify a suspect and limitations of available forensic technology can be a valid justification, particularly when the prosecution proceeds promptly once the evidence becomes actionable.
- Courts generally should not deem investigative delay negligent by second-guessing law enforcement resource allocation absent intentional delay for advantage or clearly negligent conduct.
- DNA population frequency statistics and random-match probabilities are admissible when based on accepted methods and are relevant to identity; plain-language explanations of their meaning are permissible absent a showing the jury was misled.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of California upheld a decades-late, DNA-driven capital prosecution, concluding that technological limits and lack of earlier identifying evidence justified the precharge delay and that highly probative DNA statistical testimony was properly admitted and argued at trial.


People v. Nelson, 43 Cal. 4th 1242 (Cal. 2008)