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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Making It Stick: Protecting the Record for Appeal
Having a sexual assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking case reversed on appeal can result in a re-trial with stale evidence, reluctant witnesses, and a victim who is forced to relive the case when she is finally beginning to heal. Though the appellate process is unavoidable, a prosecutor can bring a measure of finality to the criminal justice process by carefully building a strong trial court record that supports the conviction and the sentence imposed and withstands appellate challenges. This article discusses the proper creation and protection of the record during all phases of a criminal case, focusing on investigation, charging, plea agreements, trial preparation and strategy, summation, and sentencing. It addresses pretrial motions, recommends the use of trial briefs on anticipated trial problems, and explains how strategic charging decisions can result in admission of evidence that might otherwise be excluded.
Making_it_Stick_Protecting_the_Record_for_Appeal_Issue_12
Prosecuting Intimate Partner Violence and Animal Cruelty
While control of the victim is the ultimate goal of perpetrators of intimate partner violence, victims themselves are not the only targets of these tactics. Abusers may also threaten and commit acts of violence against the victim’s children, family members, and even their pets. This article discusses strategies for protecting victims of abuse and their pets and holding offenders accountable for their actions. The author encourages prosecutors and allied professionals to work together in a coordinated fashion to better identify, investigate, and prosecute acts of animal cruelty. A coordinated community response to co-occurring animal abuse and domestic violence, together with the effective use of strategies to permit successful prosecution in the absence of active participation by the victim, will promote the safety and well-being of victims and their pets while holding the offender accountable for the abuse of all victims in the household.
SIB_Issue_14_Prosecuting_Intimate_Partner_Violence_and_Animal_Cruelty
Routine Strip-Searches Upheld for Intake into Jail’s General Population
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court held that correctional institutions may conduct routine strip-searches of all detainees upon admittance to the general population of the institution, even those arrested for the most minor offenses. The decision also concluded that such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court’s decision did not address the question of whether such searches would be constitutionally justifiable without reasonable suspicion if the detainee were not to be admitted to general population, leaving open the possibility of limitations on such searches where alternatives to placement in the general population exist. This article reviews the facts of the case and analyzes the Court’s opinion. It highlights the need for clear legislative or regulatory guidance delineating the circumstances under which strip-searches may be conducted. The article emphasizes the need for a solution that will provide institutional security crucial to the safety of all inmates and staff, while minimizing the need to conduct searches that may traumatize detainees.
Routine_Strip_Searches_Upheld_for_Intake_into_Jails_General_Population_Issue_15
