What stops you from robbing a bank? What stops you from setting fire to a trash can?
Presumably, the fear of legal consequences.
So, too, here. A witness who is thus threatened can tell the police, and the malefactor can then be charged with witness intimidation. Indeed, someone facing a misdemeanor domestic assault charge might find himself upgraded to a felony. In my state, using threats of bodily harm or force to try to intimidate or impede a witness is a felony.
If the victim refuses to testify for the prosecution, can the defense call her as a witness? Wouldn’t the prosecution be limited as to what the can ask on cross?
It works the same way in Florida, but in the Zimmerman case there probably isn’t any other evidence of assault to collect. At most, there’s evidence of property crimes.
Former NY State Senator Hiram Monserrate
No. If the victim doesn’t want to press charges, the case may result in a dismissal due to limited evidence without the victim’s cooperation. By not pressing charges without the witness, the state could reopen charges later should the victim change her mind, as double jeopardy has not come into play.
This statement is bullshit.
Here, the problem is not just that the victim does not wish to press charges; it’s that she has changed her story and says now that the allegations of him threatening her were inaccurate. Now, even if she does change her mind again later and want to prosecute, the defense will make hay with the inconsistency.
Kyron Horman. Scuttlebutt has it the police/prosecutors known Kyron is dead and who killed him. Evidence is lacking to complete the ties to the killer that will result in a conviction.
Hyperbole. Boyfriends/husbands go to jail for battery domestic violence very frequently.
Do you think domestic violence is a “growing” problem, or a shrinking one? Are you more likely to get away with beating up your girlfriend now, or 50 years ago?
How should we fix it?
As do girlfriends/wives although that is less likely to be reported.
Also, even if it is reported, the girlfriend/wife will generally claim that she was defending herself against her boyfriend/husband, so he is usually the one who goes to jail anyway.
I have seen prosecutors pursue domestic violence cases with such poor evidence that if it had been any other case with evidence of that quality it would have rightly never left the police station. Victims cooperating is good, but not necessary. So it should not be construed that domestic violence is not pursued with vigour.
I do not want to in anyway lessen the horror that DV is though. I work with an NGO on DV and some of the cases I get referred…my god humans are bastards.
If I show up and one person has a swelled up eye and states “they punched me in the face”, and the couple co-habitate, there is the domestic violence. If the suspect admits to it, even better. I’m the one who testifies as to what I saw and what was said. We really don’t need any other testimony in most of these cases.
When called as a [possible hostile] witness and the victim changes their story, they can be charged with filing a false report and obstructing. Both parties are often charged with things in domestic cases. If the DA isn’t a hard ass with both, and someone down the road gets murdered, it’ll be a huge media story about how a domestic abuser got off in the past.
The caveat of this is that often in first time offenses deferred prosecution is used (keep your nose clean for 6 months and this goes away). Which means it ends up being a first offense every 6 months!:rolleyes:
That is untrue. One of the easiest ways to lose your job is to drop the ball of a DV case. When we are sent to investigate a crime we are required by law to actually investigate. Which includes hearing both sides and seeing if the evidence matches the statements. No one gets arrested just because they are male.
That is not what happens here. In 15 years I have only been involved in 2 cases that went to trial when the victim recanted. Both times the judge felt the need to put it on record but both cases were not guilty verdicts.
We do use deferred prosecution here for minor assaults.
pkbites, how does the statement “they punched me in the face” get admitted as part of the officers’ evidence? in my jurisdiction, that would be hearsay. The officers can testify about their personal observations (e.g., black eye, bloody nose, etc.), but a statement by the victim would be hearsay. Is there a special rule of evidence where you are that lets it be admitted via the officers’ testimony?
I’ve been meaning to comment on the title of the thread. It’s the not case that something “isn’t a crime” if it’s difficult to prosecute. Domestic violence is a crime. But the prosecutor must have a solid case to warrant going to trial, let alone secure a conviction. If that’s not available in a particular situation, that doesn’t mean that domestic violence is not a crime.
It would depend on the exact circumstances but it could fall under the exceptions.
Rule 803 Federal rules of evidence.
No, I don’t know all the case law on that.
Deputy Beitz: Do you need medical attention
Victim: Yes! My boyfriend punched me in the face.
DB: Did you consent to being punched in the face
Victim: that’s the stupidest question I’ve ever heard
Never would have trouble getting that statement in as far as I know.
ETA: DA’s problem though, not mine.
hmm. I would have thought it was hearsay, but rules of evidence (and hearsay rules) can vary a lot.
Well, there’s the recording of the 911 call. The prosecution could try to build a case out of that. They have chosen not to.
Hmmm… the defence lawyer putting a recanting partner on the stand, trying to elicit a denial; wouldn’t that be suborning perjury? He knows darned well what happened, and he asked questions knowing she would lie on the stand… Is his career and the freedom of a wife-beater worth the risk that someday she sees the light and changes her story? I assume the prosecutor is pretty much obliged to call their key witness, and asking “did you tell the police he beat you” is a way of avoiding asking any question that they know she is going to perjure herself over.
Yes, spouses do falsely allege abuse. So too do women falsely allege rape, for various reasons (Duke Lacrosse, anyone?). I have also heard several people say their children threatened to call the child and family services and say they were being hit. (Kids hear the silliest ideas at school) HOWEVER - the instances where this is a false accusation are far, FAR less than the instances where the offense actually happened.
False spousal abuse or threat allegations are I imagine generally an after-the-fact claim that typically happens during the knock-down struggle of a divorce. Both sides know the system and what buttons to push. He threatens to take away the kids and sue for full custody, she alleges abuse to get an edge in the court drama, and round and round it goes. For example, my boss had his in-laws allege on the stand that he hit his kids, but they couldn’t keep their story straight, so he won custody. The classic case is Mia Farrow claiming Woody Allen sexually abused both the little girl and the little boy during their nasty divorce.
(As an aside, my friend’s kid tried the “I’ll tell them you hit me” routine during a particularly bad screaming match. His reply - “Go ahead. They’ll put you with some other family who only look after you because they’re paid to; and you won’t get allowance, gifts, vacations, or anything else that they aren’t paid to give you…” Oddly, a year or two later a classmate of the son tried the exact same thing - she did not want to leave town with the family, and alleged her brother fondled her. Once she saw where she ended up, she tried to recant - but too late. Child and Family Services cannot for safety’s sake believe retractions until everything is dealt with.)