When did you stop beating your wife?

Domestic violence is bad.  It is.  I'm not sure you'll find anyone that condones it.  But in many respects, this is true with any criminal activity.  But like its cousin, DWI, Domestic Violence is often a politically-charged crime.  It plays well in the media.  It's one of those crimes that can be played out as a "it can happen to anyone" crime.  

Domestic violence is such a "big deal" that there is actually a misdemeanor court in Tarrant County devoted solely to handling domestic violence assaults and similar crimes.  County Criminal Court Number 5, Judge Jamie Cummings, presiding.  I love that court.  I hate that court.

I will admit that domestic violence cases are somewhat unique in the sense that, for a number of reasons, there are more recantations in a domestic violence case than any other.  Too often, the alleged victim decides that it didn't happen.  Whether it be because she realizes her boyfriend is going to jail for real, that a conviction for her husband could ruin the family, or the acknowledgment that she was really just trying to get him in trouble and realizes how big of a deal it is, there isn't a day that goes by where a domestic violence "victim" says it didn't happen.

Of course, from the defense perspective, this can be great.  I would say seventy percent of my practice is victim-less anyway, so if I can have an honest-to-goodness victim say it didn't happen, why would I complain?  Go ahead, madam prosecutor, call the "victim" to the stand.  This should be fun.  And I'm all about fun.

I have more cases set for trial in this one court than any other four courts combined.  Why?  It's not because I have more triable cases than the rest, although strangely this is a lot of it.  But rather it's that I have fewer options to me but to put the State to its burden and go to trial.  

Granted, deferred adjudication is available for domestic violence cases.  This is unlike DWIs, which go to trial for many of the same reasons.  But in recent years, domestic violence cases have become weighed down by so many collateral consequences that pleading to deferred is of no significant value.  Sure, you don't get "convicted" in the strictest sense of the term, but you still have to deal with a number of collateral consequences associated with a conviction.

Sure, I do like to try cases, but sometimes cases should be resolved some other way.  Of course every defense attorney would like to get their cases dismissed, just like every prosecutor would probably like to get a conviction for every case.  The problem is we don't start from the same place.

"We don't dismiss."  I've heard this mantra all too often associated with domestic violence cases.  The truth is, the good prosecutors who apparently have personally offended someone high up in the D.A.'s office to be assigned to the "Love Court" in the first place will dismiss cases they know to be "dogs."  I applaud them for that.  It's just knowing what your case is worth and resolving it.  They are good prosecutors.  And there is always the prosecutor who will finally dismiss a case after it has languished for almost year when they know it's a "dog" and are only holding off in hopes the defense will cave to a plea.

But it's the zealot that causes the problems.  Those prosecutors that make the argument that "it happened in front of the kids" or "it could have been a lot worse" that become the problem. 

First of all, if "it" didn't happen, as relayed to you by your "victim"  in her statement saying she only wanted to get him in trouble, then "it" didn't happen in front of the kids.  See how that works?  I think there is a freshman year logic class you can enroll in to get that.

Secondly, if you really think the case should have been a felony, why don't you, as the prosecutor, charge it as such.  There is no more ridiculous argument from a prosecutor, the person who decides how a case is filed, than to say it could/ should have been a felony.  If it's a felony, file it as such.  If not, shut up.

The problem is that all too often one of the trappings of being a misdemeanor prosecutor, believing that if it's in the police report it must be true, is exacerbated in a domestic violence case.  It almost seems with some prosecutors that they hold out no possibility for another side of the story.  It's funny, kind of.  It's also sad.

I don't really know what the source of the problem is.  I know that Court 5 is swamped with cases.  They have tried a number of things to relieve the pressure of an overloaded docket over the last several years, but it only seems to be getting worse.  

I don't know if it is an internal policy of the D.A.'s office, a directive of those "senior" felony prosecutors that oversee the misdemeanor prosecutors, or just dumb luck that causes the problems in this court.  But there has to be something.

There is a reason why prosecutors in Court 5 lose more trials (a very well-respected defense attorney told me the other day it's between 2 out of every 3 and 3 out of every 4 trials).  I wonder if it has to do with not getting value from your case?  I can't imagine the prosecutors in this court are not any good.  The ones I deal with are very good.  Of course one comes to mind that may be the exception.  But she hates me anyway.  I'll just have to be brave about that.

Granted, I am probably public enemy number one in the D.A.'s office, or at least with those in Court 5 over the last year and a half.  But it's never personal with me.  It's a job.  They think I am screwing with them because I set so many cases for trial, or that I don't negotiate with them to resolve it.  It's not.  It's valuing my cards.  My client tells me he didn't do it and there is a witness who can substantiate that.  What would I do but set it for trial?

The problem with this court seems that there are too many prosecutors being held to an unreasonable expectation by their superiors.  Those that do the day-to-day grunt work of handling these cases can value them pretty well (although there is the exception, and you know who you are).  It's just that their hands are tied.  

But what the hell do I know?

Comments

[Alton Estrada]

Shawn,

I think the big problem with these cases is what happens when there is a "victim" that calls 911 with horrible fear in their voice, the police arrive and the defendant it gone, the victim says the defendant punched her and threatened to kill her, an arrest warrant is done, and the defendant is finally picked up and booked in. Then the victim for whatever reason wants to file an affidavit of non-prosecution.

Your major argument fails in my opinion that because the victim later recants and says she made it up it must not have happened. She probably is lying. It probably did happen just the way or very similarly to the way it was originally reported.

The next thing you and other defense attorney's need to consider is what would happen to the ada and elected da if / when the defendant get's out of jail or the case is dismissed by the ada and kills the victim JUST LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD. It does not go over well in the paper, ch. 4, ch. 5, ch.8, or ch.11. When the media gets a copy of the 911 tape or the offense report and see what the allegations are and then learns the ada dismissed the case?

I learned a valuable lesson as an intern at the Harris County District Attorney's Office when the above scenario happened.

It's a lot easier to say or believe just drop the case if the "victim" wants it dropped, but it does not end the violence or potential violence to so easily do so.

Alton

[Matlock]

Alton,

You raise an interesting point. Should the State prosecute someone for an alleged crime the victim says now didn't happen because they are afraid of what might happen in the future?

I think that is the issue here. If you're the prosecutor, and you have a dog of a case and the victim is telling you it didn't happen, but that she is afraid of what might happen in the future, should you continue to prosecute to protect the victim in the future just to cover your ass, or more importantly, your boss's? I don't think so.

It's a passive system. We can only deal with the stuff that has already happened. When we start prosecuting for future safety reasons, we've got problems.