A Baltimore woman was just convicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, after she lied to a grand jury about whether or not her boyfriend had attacked her.
The short synopsis: she called 911 to report that her erstwhile boyfriend, armed with a gun, was threatening her. The boyfriend was arrested and released on bail, and called her several times threatening her with dire consequences if she pursued charges against him. She failed to appear in front of a grand jury, and then, when compelled to appear, lied and told the grand jury she never saw the boyfriend with the gun. She claimed the gun police confiscated that night was one she found, and that a friend of hers could back up that story. Authorities tracked down the friend and recorded a phone call between her and the accused woman. “I need you to do something for me,” she asked her friend in that call. “I need you to tell a big lie.”
According to the woman, she was motivated both by fear that the boyfriend would retaliate and a feeling that she didn’t want Woodard’s prison term on her conscience. Her testimony was key, because the boyfriend was a felon, and his possession of a firearm would allow authorities to put him away for a longer time.
In any event, she was tried and convicted of perjury, and sentenced to 30 months.
Thoughts? Ought she to be treated as a victim or as a perjurer? Or both?
Might as well add insult to injury. If anyone thinks that domestic abuse is a black and white issue then they know nothing. Of course she should go to jail, she lied to the grand jury. Perhaps she even thinks it’s worth it to save her own life.
Well, the U.S. Attorney’s office was well with the terms of the law in prosecuting her, but quite frankly this is obscene (see? I can define that term. ;)). To my mind, the worst part was that the abusers was convicted anyway. If the victim had blown the case for the prosecution, the decision to go after may have been justified.
Prosecutorial discretion exits for a reason. Morons.
I was trying to ascertain if the guy had been on parole at the time. If he had been, (at least in my county), he’d have remained in jail until the case against him was through the courts.
the other thing I wondered about, since they referenced a long and healthy criminal conviction record, exactly why did he warrant a raisable bail? Hmm.
Re: OP. If the case against him was made anyhow, why bother with her? and, more to the point, if you want to make an example of some one, why not make an example of the yahoo who bought him the gun??? (according to the cite, yet another woman who was not prosecuted)
I don’t know the details of the case, but one posibility is that the prosecution was able to get a conviction for the abuser, but not the sentance that was appropriate, perhaps even something as silly as probation.
In general, I agree with the prosecuting of the victim if they hampered with the prosecuting of the abuser, most importantly because not doing so sends a bad message to abusers that you can threaten your victim and receive a lighter sentance for your crimes.
I’m not so sure. I am troubled by the prosecution, since there seems to be little doubt both that the woman felt a real fear of reprisal and that that fear was justified. But, I also not ehtat she seems to be in continual denial about her own responsibility in both commiting perjury and encouraging her friend to do the same. One breath after saying, “I did it”, she is quoted as saying, “I’m doing time for something he did.”
Now, if I were the prosecutor I might react negatively to someone who apparently feels no personal responsibility for lying to a grand jury and obstructing teh prosecution of a dangerous felon.
Do I sympathize with her fear? Absolutely. Does personal fear justify lying to allow a dangerous felon to remain free? I don’t think so. Apparently, neither did this particular prosecutor. At some point, personal fear and histories of abuse cannot justify felonious actions. It is easy to see the line when a mass murderer points to childhood abuse as an excuse; the line is less clear with battered girlfriends. This case, to me, seems very much on the border.
How did prosecuting her change that message? As far as messages go, I agree with the person quoted in the article, that the message it sends is for victims not to call the police in the first place.
Spiritus Mundi
As much as she’s denying her responsibility, seems to me the police and the courts are denying their own even more. If they had done their job, she wouldn’t have been afraid for her life. Once victims don’t have to be afraid of reprisals, the government can start prosecuting them for not testifiying. Until then, I think they should excercise more discretion.
I agree with your analysis in the general sense. However, there are three considerations here that, I think, warrant a different result.
The guy was convicted anyway. The prosecutor obviously did not need the woman’s testimony. The felon in this case did not remain free.
The prosecutors created the situation. The woman did not want to testify before the grand jury, and the prosecutors forced her by issuing a subpoena. Had the prosecutors exercised the discretion that, according to the article, prosecutors often exercise in similar situations, the woman wouldn’t have been required to testify under oath and therefore wouldn’t have been in a position to commit perjury. Making this abuse of discretion even more egregious, her testimony obviously wasn’t necessary and was merely cumulative, given that the guy was convicted.
On a more philisophical note, who “owns” the crime? Is it the victim, or society. While I certainly understand and agree that crimes are crimes against society, I believe that the victim should have at least some say. Here, the prosecutors ran roughshod over the victim.
Ryan, the police arrested him. The prosecutors charged him. A court convicted and sentenced him despite the active obstruction of the victim. Exactly how much more do you expect the government to do to protect its citizens?
sua
Your first point depends entirely upon outcome. I think this is a poor principle to use in determining whether a crime has been committed (though it obviously might affect the specifics of the charge). Is any illegal activity to be condoned so long as some other criminal gets punished? If I shoot at the police to protect my wife the drug lord, but I miss and they catch her anyway, should I not be charged?
As to whether the prosecutors “created” the crime, maybe. Had they not issued teh subpeona, she would not have perjured herself and subborned perjury from her friend. The question is, were they right to force the testimony. Here, again, you argue from results that it was not necessary. My quetion is: could the prosecutor be expected to have known the conviction would be made without her testimony? I have no problems with a prosecutor trying to marshall as strong a case as possible to put a dangerous felon behind bars, even if the felon’s girlfriend doesn’t want the conviction “on her conscience”. If I witness a felony and report that felony to the police and then refuse to testify in court, is it unreasonable for the government to compell my testimony? If so, are there ever any circumstnces where the government is justified in compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness?
On your third point, I have no idea who “owns” the crime. I think our government has a responsibility (with which we have chosen to invest it) to protect its citizenry from criminals. I will also note that while the woman was teh victim of the domestic assault, she was not the victim of the illegal possession of a firearm. I see no reason why her victimhood in the one crime should exempt her from her responsibillites in the second.
She is a victim.
She is also a perjurer.
Frankly, the main point that I find “offensive” in the newspaper report is the mandatory minmum sentence the federal judge was forced to issue. I dearly wish that politicians would cease to handicap the judiciary with inflexible statutes in order to apper “tough on crime”. If the trend continues, we should stop calling them “judges” at all. Maybe “accountants” or “lackeys”.
I think we are pretty close to agreement - you are absolutely right that outcome is a bad principle, and I stand corrected.
That being said, your example sucks big-time. It is a very different thing to commit a crime and get caught than to commit a crime as a result of reporting that another person committed a crime.
Look at it this way - the issue here is ante- and post- fact anonymity. People have the right to report crimes anonymously. The circumstances of this case prevented the woman from taking advantage of that. She essentially asked for post-fact anonymity and was refused. Why should that be the result?
People who report crimes anonymously have not committed any crime, and they are spared the possibility of being called to testify (and possibly being convicted of perjury). In this case, the woman didn’t have that option. The only option she has is to not report the crime. Is that a positve result?
Domestic abuse is already seriously underreported in this country. I see no benefit to society in the authorities adding another incentive not to report.
I agree with you unreservedly on the issue of mandatory minimums.
I’m with Spiritus Mundi on this one. This is yet another case where mandatory minimum sentences result in an absolute travesty. The woman clearly committed perjury, and certainly deserved punishment, but 2-1/2 years in the pen is pretty excessive IMHO. Aside from embarrassing the prosecutor in front of the grand jury, there was no harm done here because the boyfriend got convicted anyway.
That said, I’m not terribly sympathetic to the woman for committing perjury in the first place. By making the phone call to police, she willingly invoked the protections of the criminal justice system. That system does not serve society well if it can only be an on-the-spot intervention service that ends its involvement as soon as the immediate threat is over. If it is to accomplish its longer-term goals (serving both the victim and the society, as Spiritus adroitly points out), it must be allowed to follow through. That follow-through is exactly what the victim here tried to deny the system the opportunity do.
Actually, I don’t think there’s a general right to report crime anonymously in this country, Crimestoppers ("…and you can remain anonymous") notwithstanding. Police departments willingly accept anonymous tips because it’s a great way of getting information about criminal activity. But just because you report a crime anonymously does not make you immune from having to testify fully and truthfully if called upon to do so.
For instance, imagine that our victim here anonymously reports her boyfriend has a gun. The police arrest the guy, but he doesn’t have the gun on him, so they need a witness. The victim’s friend then tells the police that the victim had seen the perp waving a gun around. So can the prosecutor force the victim to testify about what she saw? Darn straight he can. Anonymous reporting is not a get-out-of-testifying-free card. In the absence of an express agreement exempting the witness from testifying, prosecutors should be able to call on anyone they need to make their case.
How,exactly, is the government going to cause her to feel safe? Guanrantee that he’ll be convicted? Have a mandatory sentence of life without parole for domestic assaults? Give her a bodyguard for the rest or her life? Short of those options, he’s going to get out someday, and maybe he’ll find her.Even while he’s incarcerated, his family or friends may retaliate against her.
Sua,
IANAL, but I prosecute parole violations.I recently was trained in domestic violence cases,and it was made clear that certain types of evidence would not be admitted unless the victim either appeared to testify or refused to comply with a subpoena. For example, there’s a report the police fill out in a domestic case which is signed by the victim and to which she can add her own statement. If I don’t subpoena her,and she doesn’t show up, it’s not the best evidence and doesn’t get admitted. If I do subpoena her, and she doesn’t comply,she’s treated as unavailable, and it’s admitted.If she shows up under subpoena and wants to recant, I can treat her as a hostile witness and use it to impeach her. Is it possible that there was a similar situation in the gun case - that whatever other evidence there was wouldn’t be admissable without her testimony?
I’m not so sure anomynous reporting makes a difference. She’d have been in the same position if someone else had anonymously reported that her boyfriend was threatening her with a gun,and when the police arrived she confirmed that he was.
I think they certainly should have used their discretion and not charged her with perjury, though.
If she had immediately told the authorities that Woodward had threatened her with violence if she testified, wouldn’t they be able to revoke his bail and charge him with additional felonies?
It is a very different thing to commit a crime and get caught than to commit a crime as a result of reporting that another person committed a crime.