Appeal Hearing Held Over Class-action Status of Memphis Rape Kit Lawsuit

An oral argument for a looming class-action lawsuit was heard in the Tennessee Court of Appeals on Tuesday, tackling the issue of over 12,000 untested rape kits in the City of Memphis, and whether victims affected could file a class-action suit against the City.

Details of the Appeal

Following a ruling in March 2023, Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Gina Higgins denied the city’s plea to dismiss the lawsuit. The suit, addressing the untested Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs) dates back to the 1980s and seeks damages for the victims involved. The city appealed Judge Higgins’ ruling, marking the commencement of the argument in the state appeals court in Jackson on Tuesday.

The appeal hearing was divided into two interconnected yet separate cases: “Johnson et. al. v. The City of Memphis” and “Janet Doe v. The City of Memphis et. al.”

Johnson Case: The Foundation of the Issue

In 2013, the City of Memphis publicly acknowledged the existence of over 12,000 untested rape kits from cases spanning between 1985 and 2012. This admission served as the catalyst that drove Rachel Johnson, Madison Graves, and Meaghan Ybos to file a suit against the City in 2014, seeking $1.5 million in damages with a maximum cap of $750,000 to be paid by the City and Shelby County.

However, during discovery, it was unveiled that their kits had been tested shortly after their assaults, subsequently leading to the conviction of the perpetrator. Based on these findings, the cases were ultimately dismissed.

Lakey’s Argument to Overturn the Class Action Ruling

City representative attorney, Jon Lakey, contended that the class-action ruling should be rescinded as the class must be clearly defined before certification. He argued the current class was wide-ranging and the intricacies of the lawsuit mandated detailed subclass analysis which the trial court failed to carry out.

Janet Doe vs. The City of Memphis: Focal Point of the Argument

With the dismissal of the Johnson et. al. case, the spotlight turned to the still-standing case of Janet Doe. In 1997, Doe became a victim of a sexual assault and surrendered to DNA collection for a SAK. However, her kit was not processed until 2015. Unlike the Johnson et. al. case, Doe’s suit seeks $10 million in damages with no cap limit per government entity.

Controversy Over the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)

Lakey contended that at the time of Doe’s assault in 1997, the law enforcement industry had not yet established the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Because of this, there were no suspects to compare to the DNA collected from Doe’s case, setting the conditions of Doe’s case apart from Johnson et. al. who were assaulted after the inception of CODIS.

However, Gary Smith, Doe’s representative, contested Lakey’s argument, stating that even pre-CODIS, SAKs could be submitted for TBI testing. Smith argued that the backlog of untested kits continued to accumulate even after the establishment of CODIS, demonstrated by the fact that Doe’s SAK was not processed until 2015.

Implications of the Lawsuit

Smith accused the city of avoiding responsibility for a “scandal of epic proportions”. The decision to affirm or reject the appeal now rests with Judges Andy Bennett, Arnold Goldin, and J. Steven Stafford.