Results indicated that prosecutors in the current study had a positive perception about their ability to obtain a guilty plea if a SANE collected the evidence. The prosecutor's ability to obtain a plea appeared stronger if a SANE collects evidence. When comparing non-SANE/sexual assault response team (SART) versus SANE/SART cases, the latter collected more evidence (especially DNA evidence), reported cases more quickly, and demonstrated a greater degree of victim participation. Researchers agree that evidence collected by SANEs can strengthen the case for the prosecutor; collected evidence can link the victim and the suspect to the crime scene. Noted was that in an audit of rape kits completed by SANEs and non-SANEs in Minneapolis, SANE kits were significantly more complete and had fewer errors. SANEs also maintained the proper chain of evidence more consistently than non-SANEs. The prosecutor's ability to obtain a plea was stronger if a SANE collected the evidence; also found was that the use of SANEs had increased the number of guilty pleas obtained, which resulted in the victim avoiding the need to testify in court. There were reports that SANE programs specifically increased the rate of plea bargains because when confronted with the detailed forensic evidence collected by the SANEs, assailants would decide to plead guilty (often to a lesser charge) rather than face trial. Finally results found that the proportion of cases presented to the grand jury increased after the inception of the SANE program, as did the proportion of charges presented to the grand jury that resulted in an indictment; conviction rates increased as well, as did the percentage of those who received jail time and the length of the sentences. Data were collected from 71 prosecutor's offices in Texas using a mail-out survey. References