Evidence-based prosecution

Last updated November 01, 2022

Evidence-based prosecution (sometimes termed "victimless prosecution") refers to a collection of techniques utilized by prosecutors in domestic violence cases to convict abusers without the cooperation of an alleged victim. It is widely practiced within the American legal system by specialized prosecutors and state's attorneys and relies on utilizing a variety of evidence to prove the guilt of an abuser with limited or adverse participation by the abuser's victim, or even no participation at all.

Context within domestic violence prosecution

Evidence-based Prosecution arose from the unique challenges facing prosecutors in domestic violence cases. While domestic abuse has been prevalent throughout history and its impacts severe, only in recent decades has prosecution been undertaken aggressively.^[1] Since the 1970s, increased public awareness has led to tougher laws and an ever-expanding role for law enforcement and the criminal court system in what had previously been regarded as "a family matter". While in the 1980s as little as 5% of domestic abuse cases with injuries would be routinely prosecuted, in 2010, the rate in some jurisdictions approached 80%.^[1]

Prosecutors managing these cases face a constant problem of victims who are unable or unwilling to cooperate with prosecution. In jurisdictions with aggressive enforcement of domestic violence laws, approximately 65-70% of victims do not cooperate with prosecution.^[2] This occurs for a variety of reasons and includes seeking dismissal of charges, lying to prosecutors or police, recanting statements about the abuse, refusing to talk about the abuse, perjuring themselves in court to protect the abuser, or refusing to come to court altogether.^[3]

Evidence-based prosecution arose from the desire to prosecute individuals in domestic violence cases either without placing pressure on the victim to cooperate when she or he might face retaliation or other dangers from doing so, or when such pressure is applied but ineffective. It was first used in the 1980s, but did not become widespread until the 1990s. By 2004, it was actually preferred by some prosecutors, who reported higher conviction rates without victim cooperation than with it.^[4] As of 2010, the use of evidence-based prosecution is strongly encouraged, if not mandated, for agencies receiving federal funding through the STOP Violence Against Women Act.

In its infancy, evidence-based prosecution was often called "victimless prosecution," although this has since become a slang term only, neither factually accurate nor politically correct. As prosecutors and victim advocates frequently point out, evidence-based prosecution often does not deal with a "victimless" crime, nor does it seek to remove the victim or her interests from the case, but rather seeks to focus on the crime and its impact without relying on the victim's participation. Of course, all prosecutions are based on evidence, so the term "evidence-based" prosecution, while politically correct, is not at all descriptive. In context, "evidence-based" prosecution is best understood as a prosecution without any testimony from most or all of the principal witnesses and instead making effective use of all remaining or alternative forms of evidence.

Evidence used

The most common pieces of evidence used in evidence-based prosecution are: 911 call recordings and transcripts, Child witness statements, Neighbor witness statements, Medical records, Paramedic log sheets, Prior police reports, Restraining orders, Booking records, Letters from the suspect, Videotaped/Audio taped interviews with the victim, and Defendant's statements.^[5]

The basic techniques in utilizing these and other pieces of evidence loosely resemble the use of circumstantial evidence in murder cases (in which, of course, the victim is never available to testify). For instance, a recording of a 911 call by the victim might be used to convey what happened to the judge or jury if the victim is not in court to testify, refuses to talk about what happened, or is not truthful about it. Likewise, statements from the Defendant in the case, such as to police officers or detectives, might be introduced to show inconsistencies or admissions about the abuse.

The evidence is often complemented by the use of expert witness testimony from a domestic violence expert, often an experienced victim advocate, researcher, or law enforcement officer.^[6] The expert witness helps explain to a judge or jury the reasons a victim may be absent or testifying on behalf of the alleged abuser, as well as educating them on the dynamics of domestic violence and victimization.

Benefits and criticisms

The Benefits of evidence-based prosecution are obvious from the prosecutor's point of view. It can result in more convictions of domestic abusers, particularly those who might otherwise go free as a result of their effectiveness in manipulating or threatening their victims to keep them from testifying. It also has the benefit of keeping both uncooperative and cooperative victims safer by placing less emphasis on their role in prosecution and more on that of the State, resulting, at least ideally, in less reason for the abuser to seek revenge against the victim.^[7]

Proponents also look to the drop in domestic violence homicides over the past 20 years as a sign that evidence-based prosecution, in conjunction with other changes, is working to save lives.^{[ citation needed ]}

Evidence-based prosecution also generates obvious criticisms, from both an ethical and practical prospective. Its use to override a victim's wishes is based upon a paternalistic concept of the State's role in fighting domestic abuse. While prosecutors and victim advocates often contend that an uncooperative victim's desire not to prosecute is based on manipulation and coercion, there are also contrary views.

Many victims of domestic violence constantly make rational choices concerning their own safety and may be in a better position than the prosecutor to judge whether prosecution helps or hurts. Domestic violence most often turns into domestic homicide when the victim is leaving the relationship, something that may be pushed if not forced by aggressive prosecution.^[8]

Changes following Crawford v. Washington

In 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Crawford v. Washington, in which they reversed the conviction of a defendant who had been found guilty of stabbing a man based partially on statements made by his wife to police, which were introduced at trial under a hearsay exception, despite her not being available to testify. The Court held admitting out of court statements under a hearsay exception, even if deemed reliable by the court, violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. This new standard replaced a long-standing doctrine set out in Ohio v. Roberts , in which the Court had previously held that a trial court can admit out of court statements under tradition hearsay exceptions so long as the statements had certain indicators of reliability.^[9]

The Court's decision had a significant impact on evidence-based prosecution by limiting the use of many of the hearsay exceptions relied upon by prosecutors. Subsequent decisions such as Davis v. Washington have further limited the doctrine specifically regarding 911 call recordings.

These decisions have severely curtailed the number of the cases in which prosecutors can utilize evidence-based prosecution. In order to continue the practice, prosecutors have turned to improving law enforcement training at response and investigation in domestic violence cases so that police gather as much admissible evidence as possible.^[10]

Related Research Articles

The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems where a judge investigates the case.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In law, a witness is someone who has knowledge about a matter, whether they have sensed it or are testifying on another witnesses' behalf. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". In Commonwealth and US common law, it is used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

Shareef Cousin is an African-American man from New Orleans who was convicted of the first-degree murder of Michael Gerardi in 1996 and sentenced to death as a juvenile in Louisiana. At age 17, he became the youngest condemned convict to be put on death row in Louisiana, and one of the youngest in the United States.

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

The Constitution itself anchors the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Kenya. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is the National Prosecuting Authority in Kenya. The Constitution mandates it to prosecute all criminal cases in the country.

Prosecution of gender-targeted crimes is the legal proceedings to prosecute crimes such as rape and domestic violence. The earliest documented prosecution of gender-based/targeted crimes is from 1474 when Sir Peter von Hagenbach was convicted for rapes committed by his troops. However, the trial was only successful in indicting Sir von Hagenbach with the charge of rape because the war in which the rapes occurred was "undeclared" and thus the rapes were considered illegal only because of this. Gender-targeted crimes continued to be prosecuted, but it was not until after World War II when an international criminal tribunal – the International Military Tribunal for the Far East – were officers charged for being responsible of the gender-targeted crimes and other crimes against humanity. Despite the various rape charges, the Charter of the Tokyo Tribunal did not make references to rape, and rape was considered as subordinate to other war crimes. This is also the situation for other tribunals that followed, but with the establishments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), there was more attention to the prosecution of gender-targeted crimes with each of the statutes explicitly referring to rape and other forms of gender-targeted violence.

Women Against Rape (WAR) is a UK organisation founded in 1976. In their original Statement of Aims, they demanded: recognition of rape of every kind; not just by strangers but by husbands, fathers and stepfathers. They demanded that every woman must have the financial independence to escape rape and domestic violence. They said victims are entitled to compensation, along with victims of other violent crimes, from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. They also said that all women should be entitled to justice, and not be "put on trial". WAR provides support for anyone fighting for justice in their own case, and that casework shapes its campaigns.

The Staatsanwaltschaft, is the public prosecutor's office in Germany. They are the offices of the public prosecutors which are criminal justice bodies attached to the judiciary but separate from the courts.

References

1 2 National Institute of Justice, "The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits"
↑ Brady Henderson & Tyson Stanek, Esq., Domestic Violence: from the Crime Scene to the Courtroom, Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, 2008.
↑ See "Explaining Counterintuitive Behavior in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Cases", The Voice Volume I, Issue 4, National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, 2006.
↑ See, for example, the work of Cindy Dyer, a leading practitioner of evidence-based prosecution.
↑ See Casey Guinn, Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases Without Victim Participation: Post-Crawford, Davis, and Hammon
↑ See "Explaining Counterintuitive Behavior in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Cases," The Voice Volume I, Issue 4, National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, 2006.
↑ See Guinn, supra.
↑ See Neil Websdale, "Lethality Assessment Tools: A Critical Analysis", National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women
↑ "State of Ohio, Petitioner, v. Herschel Roberts". LII / Legal Information Institute.
↑ See Henderson & Stanek, supra.