[PzLdr]

Assuming there is DNA evidence of a sexual nature, it would be unethical to prosecute the defendants if they were the only parties named by the complainant as her attackers, since a prosecutor should prosecute cases he believes he can sustain by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, a lack of DNA evidence does not necessarily exclude an alleged defendant from the commission of a sex crime, since he may be a "non-secretor". This presumes the DNA evidence relates to semen, and not hairs, etc.

If the defendants conceded sex, but claim it was voluntary, DNA evidence is immaterial, since the only issue for trial would be consent.

[maggief]

EXCERPT from the article:

Answering questions from reporters, defense attorney Joe Cheshire did say that DNA of two of the men was found on a towel and on the floor of the bathroom, but that it was not in any way related to the DNA found on the alleged victim.

"The bathroom where this DNA was found happened to be the bathroom of the two boys," Cheshire said. "And any expert and any person in the world will tell you that your DNA is in your bathroom."