Model Policy for Prosecutors and Judges on Imposing, Modifying and Lifting Criminal No Contact Orders

The goals of the criminal justice system in a domestic violence case are to seek justice, protect the victim and the community, hold the offender accountable, prevent and deter future crime, and rehabilitate the abuser. Criminal no-contact orders are an effective tool to help protect victims of domestic violence during the pendency of criminal prosecution. This resource outlines what a no-contact order is, how it is obtained, and the complexities around whether to impose or maintain them when taking the victim’s wishes and safety into account. The authors discuss how to implement processes to gather timely and accurate information about risk and lethality, a particular victim’s wishes and motivations, and possible negative consequences in order to best determine when to impose or maintain a no contact order in the face of a victim’s opposition.

Model Policy for Prosecutors and Judges on Imposing, Modifying and Lifting Criminal No Contact Orders

In God’s Shadow: Unveiling the Hidden World of Domestic Violence Victims in Religious Communities

Domestic violence has been elevated to a global epidemic in recent years. Domestic violence victims of closely knit and observant religious communities face a distinct set of barriers, which affects their ability and willingness to report and to cooperate with law enforcement, as well as their ability to escape the abuse. This article provides a unique window into the hidden world of domestic violence victims in communities of faith and tackles some of the complexities associated with this sensitive issue.

To Record or Not To Record: Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Police Response to Crimes of Violence Against Women

For a variety of reasons—officer safety, public accountability, evidence collection, and departmental transparency—an increasing number of police departments have adopted, or are considering adopting, the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs). While BWCs can provide helpful evidence in cases involving gender-based violence (GBV), their use may also adversely impact victim safety and privacy. This article discusses many of the issues law enforcement, prosecutors, and allied professionals must consider when BWCs are used in GBV investigations. The article describes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration – at the local, state, and federal levels – in order to develop effective BWC policies that address victim safety, privacy, and autonomy. The article also addresses issues such as deactivation of a BWC at appropriate points during the investigation; privacy and safety considerations; discovery, redaction, protective orders limiting dissemination; and requests under freedom of information or open records statutes.

To-Record-or-Not-To-Record-Use-of-Body-Worn-Cameras-During-Police-Response-to-Crimes-of-Violence-Against-Women-SIB29

Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Post-Trial DNA Testing in Osborne

On June 19, 2009, In District Attorney v. Osborne, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants do not have a federal due process right to post–trial DNA testing. This article gives an overview of the facts and impacts of the case. Osborne’s supporters argued that if evidence existed that could conclusively show whether or not a defendant committed the crime then it should be tested. But these arguments ignore the fact that Osborne’s trial counsel’s decision to not request more specific pre-trial DNA testing was to avoid further incrimination of Osborne. This case is a reminder that prosecutors should strive to have policies that are fair and open-minded and place the interests of justice ahead of a desire to simply fight to preserve all convictions.

Understanding_the_U.S._Supreme_Courts_Decision_on_Post-Trial_DNA_Testing_in_Osborne_Issue_2

Supreme Court Clarifies Miranda

On February 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Maryland v. Shatzer, in which it reinstated a defendant’s child abuse conviction and announced a new rule that permits the police to resume questioning of suspects (who had previously invoked their right to remain silent) 14 days after they’re released from police custody. This ruling expands the ability of law enforcement officers to conduct suspect interviews in ongoing investigations where the body of evidence continues to build over time. The facts of Shatzer exemplify that a victim’s disclosure of sexual abuse is often a process that takes time, and the facts of this case presented the Court with an opportunity to create a common sense rule that appropriately balances the constitutional rights of the accused with the need to hold offenders accountable and seek justice for victims of crime.

Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Miranda_Issue_3

Miranda Under the Microscope Again

This article provides an overview of Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins, a case involving an individual’s waiver of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. The Court held that after properly administering the Miranda warning, the police did not need an express or implied waiver of rights before they interrogated the subject and that the suspect in this case failed to clearly invoke his right to remain silent by simply remaining mostly silent during the interrogation. The case doesn’t appear to drastically impact Miranda, but it does offer law enforcement additional guidance on when and how they can proceed with questioning suspects.

Miranda_Under_the_Microscope_Again_Issue_4

Supreme Court Continues to Expand the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause: Bullcoming v. New Mexico

This article provides an overview of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, a case holding that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the prosecution from introducing a forensic laboratory report through the testimony of an analyst who did not personally perform or observe the testing. The authors discuss the impact of the case on domestic violence prosecutions to the extent that it expands defendants’ rights under the Confrontation Clause in the area of required live testimony and appears to limit the prosecution’s ability to present physical evidence when laboratory analysis is involved.

Bullcoming_v_New_Mexico_Issue_6

The Benefits of Specialized Prosecution Units in Domestic and Sexual Violence Cases

Domestic violence victims not participating in the prosecution of their abusers can be misunderstood as a lack of interest or a of credibility. In adult sexual assault cases, offenders often attempt to manipulate the system into sympathizing with them and blaming the victim. In the light of these challenges and In an effort to improve the response to domestic and sexual violence, many prosecutors’ offices around the country have created specialized units dedicated to prosecuting these crimes. These units provide prosecutors with concentrated trial experience, focused training, and the opportunity to work closely with law enforcement and community partners. This approach can lead to an improved experience for the victim as well as for police, prosecutors, and community partners. This article explains how prosecutors with strong experience working on sexual and domestic violence cases are skilled at focusing on the offender and exposing his attempts to manipulate the system.

Benefits_of_Specialized_Prosecution_Units_in_Domestic_and_Sexual_Violence_Cases_Issue_8

Supreme Court Clarifies the “Ongoing Emergency” in Michigan v. Bryant

This article provides an overview of Michigan v. Bryant, a case involving the admissibility of a dying victim’s statements to responding police in view of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Court held that the statements were made to meet an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial, making them admissible under the principles of Crawford v. Washington. The authors conclude that Bryant gives criminal justice practitioners expanded guidance on what constitutes an ongoing emergency, which enhances the prosecution’s ability to prove a case when the victim is not available to testify.

Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Ongoing_Emergency_in_Michigan_v_Bryant_Issue_9