In Hot Pursuit Of The

le>victims to have them hauled into court. In other
In case you didn’t know, we are living in ainstances, prosecutors will go so far as to charge
state where uncooperative victims of domesticvictims with contempt of court for failing to appear.
violence are ducking and running from prosecutorsThus, it is not unheard of these days where both the
and investigators who wish to compel theiraccuser and the accused are facing criminal charges.
testimony. At this very moment, thousands ofFurthermore, frightening cat and mouse games are
victims are holed up in their homes or are “on thebeing played out on the streets as a result of the
lam” in their attempts to avoid contact with lawDistrict Attorney’s current position of chasing
enforcement officials.after victims. Government officials are pounding on
I have many concerns about thethe doors of victim’s homes, going to
government’s aggressive practice of pursuingvictim’s work places, and conducting around
uncooperative victims and I believe there needs tothe clock surveillances of the victim’s known
be a change in the way our criminal justice systemhangouts. Meanwhile, victims are taking time off of
handles first time offenses involving domesticwork, refusing to answer their phones, and booking
violence.trips out of the state to avoid detection.
The Recanting VictimAt the risk of being labeled a proponent of domestic
The “recanting victim” phenomenon is nothingviolence, I believe it is time for a change in the way
new. Any professional who has ever worked withour system handles cases involving uncooperative
domestic violence cases knows that a great numberand recanting victims of domestic violence. My belief
of people who report domestic violence frequentlythat we need to change the criminal justice
change their mind about pressing charges, once thingssystem’s method for handling these cases is
have cooled off and reality sets in about thebased on the following four arguments:
consequences of a criminal conviction. It is often the1) The government’s position of not listening
case that the accused and accuser make up, moveto victim’s of domestic violence when they do
back in with one another, and attempt to makenot wish prosecution is based on a flawed
things better.assumption that these people cannot think for
Out of concern for people inflicted with thethemselves. Most people who call the police because
“Domestic Violence Syndrome” (i.e., people whoof a domestic disturbance do not suffer from
are perpetually trapped in abusive relationships),Domestic Violence Syndrome. After all, women are
prosecutors have adopted the philosophy that it ismuch more independent than they were in the past,
their job to rescue victims from making the wrongand it is much easier for people to leave relationships
decision, and that it is their ethical duty to bring thethese days with the help of emergency protective
perpetrator to justice, in spite of the consequences aorders issued by the police and restraining orders
conviction will have on the parties’ relationshipissued by the family courts.
or family.2) If a person truly wants to continue in a relationship
The Use of Spontaneous Statementsor has hopes of keeping a family together, why is
Using an exception to the hearsay rule, often calledthe government so quick to interfere with that
the “excited utterance doctrine,” prosecutorsdecision? Isn’t it a no-brainer that a criminal
used to successfully prosecute domestic violenceconviction for domestic violence is likely to damage
cases, when the victim either refused to testify orthe relationship, especially where there has been a
recanted his or her statement. During trial, theloss of liberty or employment opportunities?
prosecutor would simply play the 911 tapes taken3) If our main concern in these cases is to protect
from the incident and call the responding officer tovictims of domestic violence, why are we making it
the stand who would testify as to what the victimscary for people to call the police? Certainly in some
told him about the incident during the investigation.cases it is appropriate for the police to simply keep
This type of evidence was permitted under thethe peace without making an arrest. However, with
theory that the victim’s spontaneousthe current policy, people who are deserving of this
statements were reliable since they were madebasic police service do not call the police because of
when the victim was under a great deal of stressthe severe consequences that usually follow.
from the incident, and therefore the victim was not4) Why is our government wasting so much money
likely to have fabricated his or her story.chasing after recanting victims when the likelihood of
Prosecutors knew that it was much easier to secureobtaining a conviction is so little? Although I do not
a conviction when the victim refused to cooperate,have statistics to support this argument, I know
given the impossibility for the defense to crossfrom being in court that there is an enormous
examine a 911 tape or a police officer who is merelyincrease in the amount of these cases dismissed in
regurgitating what the victim had said during thespite of the government’s expenditures in
investigation. Thus, the preferred domestic violenceattempting to locate uncooperative or recanting
case for most prosecutors was one in which thevictims.
victim refused to cooperate and never set foot inA New Approach- Domestic Violence Diversion
the court room.Programs
The Crawford DecisionIn a state that has shown drug addicts a great deal
In 2003, the glorious days of prosecuting domesticof compassion by decriminalizing the use and
violence cases came to a screeching halt based on apossession of drugs and by creating diversion
United States Supreme Court decision entitled,programs, I believe we should be more sympathetic
“Crawford v. Washington.” According to theto uncooperative victims and their families who wish
Crawford decision, the Confrontation Clause excludesto stay together. People who call the police regarding
"testimonial" hearsay from trial unless the declarantdomestic disturbances should be listened to when
testifies at trial, or the declarant is unavailable to dothey desire prosecution and also when they do not.
so and the accused had an opportunity toAdmittedly, in some cases it may not be appropriate
cross-examine the declarant at the time of theto follow the victim’s request. Some examples
hearsay. The high court’s decision put an endare where there are repeat offenses or where there
to the long standing practice of calling police officersare serious injuries. In these cases the government
to the stand to testify on behalf of the recantingshould prosecute the offender in spite of the
victim. Consequently, it is now necessary in mostvictim’s wishes, to promote safety and to
cases that the victim testifies in order for thesend a strong message to the public that domestic
prosecution to obtain a conviction.violence is wrong.
The New GameConversely, where it is a first offense with little or no
In spite of the Crawford decision, the Districtinjuries, and the victim expressly states that he or
Attorney’s Office’s mad dog approachshe does not wish prosecution, the system should
to these cases has not changed. Prosecutors aregive the offender the opportunity to participate in a
now going to extreme lengths to compeldomestic violence diversion program. This program
victim’s testimony. For example, when victimswould require the offender to attend
refuse to appear in court, prosecutors sometimesbatterer’s treatment classes, and upon
obtain “body attachments” or warrants for theirsuccessful completion of the program, the case
arrests, and then send their investigators after thewould be dismissed.