Buzz
In last night's episode of Law & Order: SVU, titled 'Double Strands,' the series once again employed its signature 'ripped from the headlines' approach, drawing inspiration from actual criminal cases and contemporary law enforcement challenges. The storyline centered on a subject I've recently been exploring: the complexities surrounding twins.
[Warning: Spoilers Below!]
The episode's narrative follows a serial rapist and his identical twin brother, who is wrongfully accused of the crimes. While the SVU team ultimately uncovers the truth, real-life law enforcement has faced significant challenges in similar cases involving identical twins. DNA evidence, typically a reliable tool for identifying perpetrators and clearing the innocent, becomes problematic in such scenarios. Identical twins originate from a single fertilized egg that splits into two embryos, resulting in nearly identical genetic profiles. To date, there is no definitive method to distinguish between their DNA.
[Spoilers End Here]
The Real-Life Headlines That Inspired the Story
On a summer evening in 2001, Darrin Fernandez attempted to break into an apartment in Boston’s Dorchester area. While smashing a window to gain entry, he not only alerted the resident but also severely cut himself on the broken glass. As he tried to flee, police quickly apprehended him, still bleeding from the injury.
DNA analysis of blood from the broken window and samples taken from Fernandez revealed a match to genetic material from two unsolved sexual assault cases. Both assaults had occurred just blocks away from the apartment Fernandez had targeted.
Fernandez was found guilty of attempted breaking and entering at the apartment. He was also convicted of one of the sexual assaults, supported by substantial evidence, including the victim identifying a tattoo unique to him (in the SVU episode, both twins share a similar tattoo). However, the second assault remained unresolved. The DNA match, the primary evidence, also implicated his identical twin brother, Damien.
With no witnesses, accomplices, or fingerprints at the scene, the case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. Neither Darrin nor Damien had an alibi for the time of the assault. While DNA evidence had convicted Darrin in another case, it only created reasonable doubt here. The first trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial. A second trial months later focused on Darrin’s proximity to the crime scene as a painter, but again resulted in a hung jury and mistrial.
In 2006, Fernandez faced trial for the third time. Prosecutors introduced new evidence, revealing he had committed four break-ins in the victim’s neighborhood within a year, including a similar sexual assault for which he had already been convicted. The victim from that assault, who had not testified in the previous trials, took the stand to emphasize the parallels between her case and the current one.
The jury delivered a guilty verdict. Five years after his initial arrest, Darrin Fernandez received an additional 15 to 20-year sentence, on top of the 10 to 15 years he was already serving for the first assault.
Law enforcement in Grand Rapids, Michigan, faced an even more challenging situation in 1999. Despite having DNA evidence from the rape of a college student, they couldn’t determine which of the twin suspects to charge.
Similar to the Fernandez case, there were no witnesses or fingerprints. Further complicating matters, both suspects, Tyrone and Jerome Cooper, had prior sexual assault convictions—Tyrone for assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 1991 and Jerome for assaulting a 12-year-old girl in 1998.
After enlisting a biotechnology company to analyze over 100,000 DNA characteristics, police still couldn’t match either twin conclusively to the evidence. They informed both twins that the case would remain open and actively pursued until the statute of limitations expired.* * * Conjoined twins present an even greater legal challenge. If one commits and is convicted of a crime, how can punishment be administered without unfairly penalizing the innocent sibling? Slate’s Daniel Engber and legal scholar Nick Kam have explored historical cases and proposed potential solutions to this complex issue.
