This resource is a statutory compilation on victim privilege and confidentiality laws broken down by practitioner.
Stalking
This compilation includes a list of statutes on stalking, related offenses and stalking elements for all 50 states and territories.
Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
This resource contains a statutory compilation and case law digest, including a summary of the foundational doctrine underlying forfeiture by wrongdoing. It also contains relevant federal case law.
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.
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.
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.
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
