Posted on

Hitting Them Where It Hurts – Strategies for Seizing Assets in Human Trafficking Cases

Human trafficking is a lucrative business that is extremely difficult to identify, investigate, and prosecute, and there are still significant barriers to a successful outcome in these cases, including, among other things, limited resources. Even where offenders are prosecuted and convicted, victims are often left shattered physically, emotionally, and financially by their experiences. Asset forfeiture laws provide for the seizure of property that is a fruit of – or was used to further – the criminal enterprise. Utilizing these laws is one effective way to deter and disrupt traffickers while providing trafficking victims with the monetary means to rebuild their lives. This Strategies in Brief discusses civil and criminal asset forfeiture as a tool in prosecuting cases of human trafficking and related crimes.

Hitting-Them-Where-it-Hurts-Strategies-for-Seizing-Assets-in-Human-Trafficking-Cases

Posted on

Assisting Human Trafficking Victims with Return of Property and Restitution

Investigating and prosecuting cases of human trafficking and violence against sexually exploited women is rife with challenges, including balancing victims’ property interests with the need to hold traffickers and exploiters accountable. Criminal justice professionals can meet these challenges by pursuing the return of victims’ property and seeking restitution where appropriate. This Strategies in Brief identifies issues that often arise when trying to return property to victims in human trafficking cases and will provide collaborative strategies for prosecutors and allied criminal justice professionals seeking to balance victim and criminal justice interests. It also presents an overview of restitution as another means of relief for victims of human trafficking to be considered by prosecutors.

Assisting-Human-Trafficking-Victims-with-Return-of-Property-and-Restitution

 

Posted on

“I Hear You Knockin’ But You Can’t Come In [At Least While I’m Here]” Fernandez v. California: Third-Party Consent Search After Arrest of Objecting Suspect-Occupant

Does a suspect’s refusal of entry prevent the police from later, in the absence of the objecting occupant, obtaining the consent of an adult co-occupant to enter and search the premises without a warrant? In its recent decision in Fernandez v. California, the United States Supreme Court answered that question in the negative—at least where the police have, in good faith, removed the objecting suspect by arresting him or her. This article reviews the facts of the case, state court proceedings, the US Supreme Court’s opinion, and the gang connection and witness intimidation involved. The article ultimately concludes that the Fernandez decision will facilitate prompt and efficient evidence collection in many crimes involving domestic violence while simultaneously empowering victims to consent to reasonable investigative requests that will facilitate holding their abusers accountable.

Fernandez-v-California

Posted on

AEquitas: Established to Promote Justice in Violence Against Women Prosecution

The criminal justice system is a critical resource for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence. As experienced prosecutors recognize, the concept of justice must also consider the victim’s safety, experience, and perspective. In order to provide the nation’s prosecutors with the support, information, training, mentorship, and resources necessary to objectively evaluate and constantly refine the prosecution of violence against women, several former prosecutors, a forensic nurse, and two national technical assistance providers created AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women.

STRATEGIES.Issue1

Posted on

Enhancing Prosecutions of Human Trafficking and Related Violence Against Sexually Exploited Women

A strong response to violence against sexually exploited women is critical to closing existing gaps and enhancing community safety and offender accountability. Collaboration among prosecutors and allied professionals with relevant expertise (e.g., organized crime, narcotics, and gangs) enhances the identification of victims and perpetrators and the effectiveness of the response to these crimes. This article outlines seven strategies to help prosecutors develop or refine their response to recognize and respond to the interconnected sexual and physical violence perpetrated against trafficking victims and individuals who experience violence as a result of their exploitation.

Enhancing-Prosecutions-of-Human-Trafficking

Posted on

No Victim? Don’t Give Up: Creative Strategies in Prosecuting Human Trafficking Cases Using Forfeiture by Wrongdoing and Other Evidence-Based Techniques

The challenges presented in the course of investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases can be daunting. Among the most common and difficult of these obstacles is the inability or unwillingness of victims to participate in the process. This reluctance may be based upon a variety of factors, including the victims’ fear, shame, distrust of law enforcement, and a real — or perceived — lack of alternatives to trafficking as a way of life. Sometimes the unwillingness of victims to participate arises from their relationships with their traffickers, who may exploit love and intimate relationships to recruit their victims. These challenges are significant but not insurmountable. Prosecutors and allied professionals can employ strategies to enhance the willingness of victims to participate in the prosecution of their traffickers and to enhance the success of the trafficking prosecution even without their participation. When victims do not participate, however, preparing and litigating forfeiture by wrongdoing motions is critical to the successful prosecution of these cases. This article discusses several key investigative and prosecution strategies.

S_Issue_7_No_Victim-Dont_Give_Up

Posted on

Williams v. Illinois and Forensic Evidence – The Bleeding Edge of Crawford

The application of Crawford principles in the context of forensic evidence continues to plague the criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Illinois raises more questions than it answers about when and how an expert may testify to conclusions based upon the opinions or work of other (non-testifying) experts or technicians. This article reviews the relevant case law, and explores how trial prosecutors can present a case involving forensic testing conducted by a multitude of technicians and experts. It also addresses Williams’ impact on cold cases, in which original experts who performed autopsies and other forensic examinations and testing are no longer available for trial. The author provides practical suggestions to trial prosecutors who must balance limited resources against the need to secure convictions that will withstand confrontation challenges on appeal.

Williams-v-Illinois-and-Forensic-Evidence-The-Bleeding-Edge-of-Crawford-Issue-11

Posted on

Integrating a Trauma-Informed Response in Violence Against Women and Human Trafficking Prosecutions

This Strategies Newsletter describes a trauma-informed approach to responding to these crimes and discusses practices where such an approach has already been incorporated, highlighting areas where continued, additional integration is necessary. This article also identifies gaps in the application of the approach, specifically in reference to other co-occurring, violence against women and human trafficking crimes, and suggests strategies to more effectively integrate trauma-informed investigative and prosecutorial practices.

Integrating-A-Trauma-Informed-Response-In-VAW-and-HT-Strategies

Posted on

The Prosecutors’ Resource on Crawford and its Progeny

There are many barriers to victims’ participation in the prosecution of their abusers. When prosecuting a domestic violence case with a non-participating victim (one who either is not in court, or who is in court but is unavailable by reason of refusal to testify, exercise of a privilege, illness, or incompetency) the prosecutor must anticipate a challenge under Crawford v. Washington to the introduction of the victim’s out-of-court statements. Crawford and its progeny are landmark cases that address the admissibility of out-of-court statements in light of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This Resource focuses on interpretations of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause under Crawford. The prosecutor must be aware, however, of the simultaneous need to satisfy state evidence rules concerning hearsay. This paper places Crawford in its historical context, presents a framework for analyzing admissibility of out-of-court statements under the Crawford rules, and provides resources, sample questions, and strategy suggestions to assist the prosecutor in satisfying the confrontation requirements under the Sixth Amendment.

The_Prosecutors_Resource_Crawford

Posted on

Ohio v. Clark: A Bit of Confrontation Clarification, A Few Tantalizing Hints

The United States Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. Clark has been heralded by many prosecutors and legal scholars as significantly broadening the admissibility of evidence under the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by Crawford v. Washington and its progeny. The decision does not break startling new ground, however; rather, the Court’s decision is one that flows more or less naturally from the Court’s previous pronouncements about what it is that makes a hearsay statement testimonial, and therefore inadmissible at trial unless the witness is subject to cross-examination, either at trial or (in the case of a witness unavailable for trial) at a prior proceeding. This article reviews the opinion’s direction and guidance to trial courts (and prosecutors) about the admissibility of statements made to individuals not affiliated with law enforcement, as well as statements made by children or others who may be limited in their ability to grasp the notion of potential future prosecution. The article discusses the importance of the opinion’s deviation from the language used in previous decisions—a distinction that promises to fuel the ongoing debate about the future of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.

Ohio-v.-Clark-A-Bit-of-Confrontation-Clarification-A-Few-Tantalizing-Hints-SIB30