When prosecuting criminal domestic violence cases too many officers constructed their entire case only on statements made by the victim. However, “victims of domestic violence are more likely than victims of other violent crime to recant or refuse to cooperate in prosecutorial efforts” (Breitenbach, 2008, p. 1256). Officers must consider that victims of domestic violence may refuse to testify because of fear of retaliation, intimidation, financial dependence, emotional attachment, and/or because they reunited with the batterer. If the victim refused to testify during court, their statement against the abuser becomes hearsay evidence. Several recent cases have had a huge influence on how those statements and hearsay evidence may be utilized in court without the victim’s testimony.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Crawford v Washington and found that testimonial assertions were not exceptions to the hearsay rule (Breitenbach, 2008). Since the purpose of a testimonial statement was to prove and/or establish facts in a case, the defendant had a right to cross examination of that testimony. This right was termed the Confrontation Clause. Due to the confusion created by the Crawford standard, the Supreme Court provided more parameters in Davis v Washington in June 2006 (Ewing, 2007). Davis established victim accounts as either testimonial or non-testimonial. The courts also believed this included statements taken during the course of an interrogation conducted by law enforcement. If the declarations were acquired by law enforcement to determine an ongoing emergency then they were identified by the court as non-testimonial and not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. If the statements we...
... middle of paper ...
...ion of the victim.
Works Cited
Breitenbach, K. G. (2008, Fall). Battling the threat: the successful prosecution of domestic violence after Davis v. Washington. Albany Law Review, 71(4), 1255+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA200252467&v=2.1&u=chazsu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Byrom, C. E. (2005). The Use of the Excited Utterance Hearsay Exception in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases After Crawford v. Washington. Review Of Litigation, 24(2), 409-428.
Ellison, L. L. (2002). Prosecuting Domestic Violence without Victim Participation. Modern Law Review, 65(6), 834-858.
Ewing, D. (2007). Prosecuting Batterers in the Wake of Davis and Hammon. American Journal Of Criminal Law, 35(1), 91-106.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (2001). Domestic violence: The law enforcement response. Minneapolis, MN: Law Enforcement Resource Center.
Pennington, B, E., S. (2014, September 19). In Domestic Violence Cases, N.F.L. Has a History of Lenience . Retrieved from
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Domestic violence information manual. The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project: The Manual. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.eurowrc.org/05.education/education_en/12.edu_en.htm
The question raised in the Hawthorne v. State amicus was related to the expert testimony of Dr. Lenore E. Walker, a Clinical Psychologist with extensive involvement in the study and research of “battered woman syndrome.” Amicus indicated Dr. Walker’s testimony would provide the Trier of facts with expert opinion on a battered woman’s belief that resorting to the use of deadly force against her husband was required, if the woman had perceived imminent death or bodily hard to herself and/or her children. Dr. Walker would clarify battered woman’s syndrome to the jury including clarifying all the relevant stages, cycles of violence, symptoms and reasons why women choose to stay with the abuser.
Domestic Violence is a widely recognized issue here in the United States. Though many people are familiar with domestic violence, there are still many facts that people do not understand. Abuse is not just physical, it is mental, emotional, verbal, sexual and financial. Many victims of physical abuse are also fall victim to these abuse tactics as well. An abusive partner often uses verbal, mental, emotional, and financial abuse to break their partner so to speak. It is through this type of abuse the victim often feels as though they are not adequately meeting their partner’s needs.
Linsky, L. (1995-1996). Use of Domestic Violence History Evidence in the Criminal Prosecution: A Common Sense Approach. Pace Law Review, 73-95.
In 1990, Brenda Koss shot her husband, Michael, while he slept and killed him consequently. Brenda Koss and a number of other witnesses testified about Michael’s ongoing abusive behaviors toward her. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized BWS as a defense in a criminal case. The Koss case is an example of how the law and perception on BWS evolved. In 1981, the state high court had refused to allow the admission of any evidence on BWS, believing that it had not yet been scientifically validated to sufficient extent. However in State v. Koss case, the court found that the professional literature and psychiatric understanding of BWS had very much improved; therefore, the court reversed itself and held that expert testimony on BWS could be admitted in a trial. The Court held that evidence of BWS was admissible through an expert testimony to help prove an element of self-defense —that is, Brenda Koss had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force (Bettman, 2011). This case illustrates how the court changed its opinion and perception on BWS as the public started to understand more about BWS and battered women. Unlike State v. Stewart (1988), BWS was positively used to support battered women’s acts of self-defense. Shortly after the Koss case was decided, the legislature passed a law recognizing and validating BWS; it permits the use of expert testimony in support of the defense.
In R. v. McGinty, Justice McLachlin concluded that competence included compellability and added a new policy dimension to the analysis. She observed: “policy interests favoured compelling testimony in cases of domestic violence. Competence without compellability would more likely [contribute to] family discord than prevent it.”
Richey, W. (2003). Can a Defendant Be Denied the Right To Confront Witnesses? Christian Science Monitor , 2.
In the past, when officers have responded to domestic violence calls from police officer’s wives, they would identify with the officer and favor their colleague rather than treating the incident as a criminal offense (Wetendorf, 1998:1). In many situations officers wo...
Domestic violence is another area that the court has decided needs special focus. This issue is very sensitive and can create higher threats against the victims involved in the cases. The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (J...
Shannon Brennfleck, Joyce. Ed. Domestic Violence Sourcebook: Third Edition. Detroit, Michigan: Omnigraphics Inc. 2009. 87-94. Print.
Thesis: In my paper, I will be examining the different types, possible causes, and effects of Intimate Partner Violence, and what treatments or programs are available to combat this growing problem in America. Regardless of differing approaches to fight it, statistics show that women all across the world suffer from the effects of domestic violence at a similar rate independent of class, race, or religion.
As all officers know, domestic violence is a serious problem throughout the United States. Unfortunately, it is also a crime that some officers perpetrate in their own homes. When officers - who are sworn to protect and serve in their communities - abuse their power and control at home, they violate the law. When this occurs, the victim, the family, the agency, and the entire community suffer. Officers are trained to maintain control, to use weapons, and to justify their use of force on the job. Officers also need to understand, however, that the core behaviors that make them effective on the job must not be used against family members and intimate partners (University of Florida).
Farney, Andrea and Valente, Roberta. Creating justice through balance: integrating domestic violence. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 2003, p.35-49.
Domestic violence is not just fighting, hitting or an occasional argument. It’s a chronic abuse of power. The abuser of domestic violence, controls and tortures the victim of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of violence in America. The abusers are not only men, women can be abusers as well. Women make up the vast majority of domestic violence. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), 90-95% of domestic violence victims are females and 70% of intimidating homicides are females. Domestic violence is a serious crime and everyone needs to be aware of its effects. This essay presents and explains the evidence supporting the major risk factors for intimate partner homicides.