Responding to Ethical Considerations for Prosecutors in Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Cases
April 21, 2026
Hosted by AEquitas
A prosecutor is “the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. . . . It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one” (Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)). Achieving justice in intimate partner violence and sexual violence cases requires prosecutors to have a firm grasp of their legal obligations as well as their ethical responsibilities throughout each stage of the criminal justice process. Intimate partner and sexual violence cases present unique ethical challenges related to victim privacy and confidentiality, prosecutorial discretion, recantation, and disclosure of evidence.
This presentation addresses the ethical considerations outlined above in the context of charging decisions, immunity, compulsion of victim testimony, Crawford, and the investigative function of a prosecutor. The presenter uses hypothetical case scenarios to challenge prosecutors to evaluate their decision-making in the context of ethical rules and principles.
At the conclusion of this presentation, participants will be better able to:
- Identify legal obligations in the prosecution of intimate partner and sexual violence cases.
- Articulate ethical responsibilities at each stage of the criminal justice process.
- Navigate the challenges related to prosecutorial discretion, recantation, and disclosure of evidence.
- Approach charging decisions, immunity, trial publicity, compulsion of victim testimony, and issues related to Crawford within an ethical framework.
This presentation was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-24-GK-03009-MUMU awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice.
