Posted on

Restitution and Asset Forfeiture: A Focus on Human Trafficking

Human trafficking is tantamount to modern slavery and is a crime with devastating consequences. This resource summarizes the restitution and asset forfeiture laws related to human trafficking in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and federal jurisdictions. An analysis of the laws was conducted, and summaries of the restitution and asset forfeiture laws are included within. The full text of these statutes is included, as well as the citation for the relevant human trafficking statute(s) for each jurisdiction.

Restitution-and-Asset-Forfeiture-A-Focus-on-Human-Trafficking

Posted on

Commonwealth v. Olivo, No. 127 MAP 2014, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Brief of Amicus Curiae

In 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Olivo, upholding, against state constitutional attack, the new Pennsylvania evidentiary statute permitting expert testimony to explain victim behavior in the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence. Previously, the courts of Pennsylvania had steadfastly resisted admission of such testimony, despite the widespread acceptance of such evidence by other courts across the country. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape submitted this amicus curiae brief, with contributions by AEquitas Attorney Advisor Teresa M. Garvey, in support of the statute’s constitutionality. The brief highlights the value of expert testimony to explain victim behavior so that jurors do not base their credibility assessments on myths and misconceptions.

Olivo-Amicus

Posted on

Responding to Stalking: A Guide for Prosecutors

Stalking affects 7.5 million people in the United States a year, with 15 percent of women and 6 percent of men being stalked in their lifetime. Stalking entails repeat victimization because it constitutes a series of acts rather than a single incident and it can cause sustained and repeated emotional distress. This guide is a resource for prosecutors in stalking cases. It provides an overview of stalking and suggests best practices for prosecuting offenders. It should be used as a guide for attorneys to support their own research and for problem-solving in prosecuting these types of cases.

Posted on

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

Posted on

And Then There Was One: A Recent Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Has Left Pennsylvania as the Only State That Disallows Expert Testimony to Explain Victim Behavior

On March 24, 2011 the Minnesota Supreme Court decided to permit expert testimony to explain common victim behavior in adult sexual assault cases. This article outlines the facts and the impact of the case. The author concludes that the prosecutors in the case executed a successful strategy that can serve as a template for how to introduce expert testimony in trials before courts that are hesitant or even hostile to the idea of admitting it.

And_Then_There_Was_One_Issue_1

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

Understanding Anogenital Injury in Adult Sexual Assault Cases

Anogenital injury is often seen as the ultimate evidence in sexual assault cases. However, the reality is that anogenital injury evidence has significant limitations. Specifically, in the vast majority of cases we are limited in our ability to distinguish between injuries resulting from a sexual assault and those sustained during consensual sexual activity. This article discusses how these points may not be well understood by legal practitioners and clinicians alike, resulting in a portrayal of anogenital injury as having clear and unambiguous significance. Understanding the emerging research on consensual sexual activity injury can therefore help us provide more accurate information to attorneys, judges, and juries in adult sexual assault cases.

Understanding_Anogenital_Injury_in_Adult_Sexual_Assault_Cases_Issue_5

Posted on

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