The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases: 

Replication Research on Sexual Violence 

Case Attrition in the U.S. 

Author(s): Melissa S. Morabito, Linda M. Williams, 

April Pattavina 

Document Number: 252689 

Date Received: February 2019 

Award Number: 2012-IJ-CX-0052 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases: 

Replication Research on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S. 

Melissa S. Morabito 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

School of Criminology & Justice Studies 

113 Wilder Street 

Lowell, MA 01854 

(p) 978-934-4256 

Melissa_morabito@uml.edu 

Linda M. Williams 

Wellesley Centers for Women 

Wellesley College 

106 Central Street 

Wellesley, MA 02481 

(p) 781-283-2498 

linda.williams@wellesley.edu 

April Pattavina 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

School of Criminology & Justice Studies 

113 Wilder Street 

Lowell, MA 01854 

(p) 978-934-4145 

april_pattavina@uml.edu 

This project was supported by Award No. 2012-IJ-CX-0052 awarded by the National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to the University of 

Massachusetts Lowell. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in 

this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of 

Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Abstract—“Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research on 

Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S.” 

We report findings from a multi-site study of sexual violence case attrition in the U.S. -- a 

replication and extension of work conducted by researchers in Los Angeles. The attrition of sexual 

assault cases from the criminal justice system has been a concern to victims, practitioners and 

researchers for the last forty years. Some of the barriers come from police discouraging victims from 

filing a report while other problems result from prosecutors reluctant to prosecute cases. A growing 

body of research suggests that there is still much that can be done to support victims and to assure 

that the role of extra-legal factors in case attrition is minimized. Spohn and Tellis (2012a) study made 

an important contribution to our understanding of the factors that explain sexual violence (SV) case 

attrition at the policing and prosecutorial stages, however their findings were specific to agencies in 

LA County. Thus there was a need to examine case processing in other jurisdictions to understand 

more about factors predictive of attrition. Our research is a multi-site replication designed to consider 

individual, locale, and community characteristics; victim advocacy; and police and prosecutorial 

responses. This research relied on a mixed methods approach using quantitative and qualitative data 

to uncover and interpret patterns in the attrition of sexual assault cases. In six jurisdictions we tracked 

reports of rape and attempted rape cases and documented the flow of reports through each stage; 

analyzing detailed case records to understand the dynamics including victim, offender and case 

characteristics associated with attrition; and conducting interviews and focus groups with key 

personnel: police, prosecutors and victim service providers. 

Between 2008-2010, 3269 complaints of sexual assault were reported to one of the six 

jurisdictions in our sample1

. For this replication study we report results on case attrition for the 2887 

female victims who reported sexual assault. 1404 (48.6%) of cases were cleared by the police; 544 

(18.8%) were cleared by arrest; 860 (29.8%) were exceptionally cleared; 1215 (42.1%) were listed as 

open/inactive; and 56 (1.9%) were listed as investigation continuing. 212 cases (7.3%) were 

unfounded by the police. Of the 544 adults arrested, charges were filed in 363 (72%); declined in 

115 (22.8%). In cases with charges filed, 189 (53.4%) ended in a guilty verdict; 152 (81%) of guilty 

verdicts were the product of a plea bargain; 7 (3.7%) involved a guilty finding by a judge and 25 

(13.2%) involved a guilty finding by a jury. In 11 cases, a jury acquitted the defendant following a 

trial. Only 45 (1.6%) of cases reported to the police during across all 6 sites were tried in court. 

Multivariate analyses predicting arrest show that legal or evidentiary factors are significant 

predictors of arrest and that the effects of case characteristics are independent of jurisdiction type. A 

cooperative victim was the strongest predictor of arrest across all jurisdictions. Medium and large 

jurisdiction results show that questions related to victim credibility reduced the likelihood of arrest 

although the type of credibility indicators varied. Race was a significant predictor only for small sites 

with higher odds of arrest for incidents involving black victims. Notably we found that extra-legal 

factors significantly predicted arrest and were often those that challenge the credibility of the victim, 

in contrast to Spohn and Tellis who found that arrest was unrelated to whether victims had mental 

health issues or engaged in “risk taking” behavior. Spohn and Tellis did not find any effect of race on 

the likelihood of arrest. Indicators of victim resistance were predictive of arrest of all relationship 

types in the replication study in contrast to Spohn and Tellis. Victim cooperation was found to be 

significant for all relationship types in both studies in predicting arrest. 

1 Cases were collected from 2006-2012 in small sites to insure a large enough sample of sexual assault complaints for statistical 

analysis and comparison to medium and large sites. This number includes cases reported by males; however, our detailed 

analyses of predictors of attrition relies on the sample of 2887 reports by females because our analyses were a replication of 

Spohn and Tellis. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Table of Contents. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

DECISION MAKING IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES: 

REPLICATION RESEARCH ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE 

CASE ATTRITION IN THE U.S. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary..........................................................................................I 

Section I Introduction........................................................................................1 

Literature Review...................................................................................................1 

Police Decision-Making in Cases of Sexual Assault 

Prosecutorial Decision Making in Cases of Sexual Assault 

Literature on Clearance of Cases 

Literature on Victim Cooperation 

The Relationship Between Police and Prosecutor 

Case Flow and Management—Size of Jurisdiction and Other Organizational Features 

National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and Clearance by Exceptional Means 

Research Design and Methods...................................................................................10 

Study Approach 

Data Collection Methods 

Data Analysis 

Section II: Overview of Case Attrition, 2008-2010...................................................16 

Summary of Outcomes 

Detailed Comparison of Our Study Results to the Spohn and Tellis Findings 

This Project’s Overall Case Attrition Finding and Comparison to Spohn and Tellis 

Summary and Conclusions 

Section III: Case Outcomes for Rape and Attempted Rape, 2008-2010.........................22 

Case Outcomes 

Victim, Suspect, and Case Characteristics 

Summary 

Section IV: Unfounding Sexual Assault.....................................................................................28 

The Use of Unfounding 

Case Characteristics 

Section V: The Overuse of the Exceptional Clearance.............................................................31 

The Overestimation of the Clearance Rate 

Case Characteristics 

Evaluating Exceptional Clearance 

Qualitative Analysis 

Section VI: The Correlates of Case Outcomes..........................................................................37 

Modeling Case Outcomes 

The Decision to Arrest the Suspect 

Analysis of Arrest Outcomes Partitioned by Relationship Type 

Exceptional Clearance

 The Decision to Prosecute the Suspect 

Case Characteristics and Convictions for Cases with Charges Lodged 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Table of Contents. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Section VII: Interviews with Sexual Assault Investigators Across Sites................................46 

Profile of Detectives 

Specialized Training 

Technology 

Patrol Officers 

The Initial Interview 

Working with Sexual Assault Victims 

Establishing Rapport 

Uncooperative Victims 

Patrol and Rapport 

Victim Credibility 

Victim Behaving “Appropriately”

Downstream Orientation 

Drugs and Alcohol 

False Reporting 

Challenges to Victims 

The Investigation 

Crimes Least Likely to be Prosecuted 

The Arrest Decision 

Exceptional Clearance 

Unfounding 

Cleared by Other 

Consultation with Prosecutors 

Decrease Difficulties for Victims 

Prevention 

Summary 

Section VIII: Interviews with Deputy District Attorneys........................................................75 

Profile of Prosecutors 

Focus of the Interview 

Specialized Training 

Prosecuting Cases and Working with Victims 

Challenges for and about the Victim 

Trauma Related to Multiple Interviews 

Raising the Problem of Victim Cooperation and “Uncooperative” Victims

Decision Making 

Victim Credibility 

Negotiating and Getting a Guilty Plea 

Complicating Factors 

Reducing the Number of Cases Taken Forward 

Juries and Convictions 

Special Unit 

Understanding Attrition 

Summary 

Section IX: Victim Services Focus Groups Findings................................................................97 

Themes Identified 

Individual Focus 

Community and CJS Focus 

Societal Education 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Table of Contents. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Section X: Conclusion and Policy Recommendations............................................................106 

Placing our Results in Context 

Summary of Results 

Broader Implications 

Conclusions 

References...................................................................................................111 

Tables and Figures........................................................................................115 

Appendices..................................................................................................148 

Appendix A: Case Record Review Data Collection Forms 

Appendix B: Interview and Focus Group Protocols 

Appendix C: Reliability 

Appendix D: Site Profile Chart 

Appendix E: Glossary 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Acknowledgements. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We are extremely grateful to the National Institute of Justice for funding this important 

study and in particular Dr. Bethany Backes and Dr. Angela Moore for their support and 

guidance. We would also like to thank University of Massachusetts Lowell and Wellesley 

Centers for Women for supporting this scholarship. Mostly, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to 

the police, prosecutors and victim service providers who participated in our study. Our research 

undoubtedly added to their workload and wouldn’t have been possible without their help and 

commitment to better understanding the attrition of sexual assault complaints. 

Finally, a study of this size requires an unbelievable amount of behind the scenes work. We 

are grateful to Mary Frederick for her hard work and dedication in supporting the project and all 

of the moving pieces. Patricia Mahoney was also crucial in our early data entry process. In 

addition, we would like to thank Elizabeth Estienne, Amanda Richer, Laura Siller, Monica 

Naranjo and Amanda Wik for their help with data analysis. We are also grateful for the work of 

our site data collection research assistants: Elizabeth Carter, Annemieke Lagerwaard, Anna 

Michaels, Sandra Potter, Lenore Rankin, Mary Verran, Ena Vu, Cathy Wallden, Nancy Winchell 

and Juliana Huard. Finally, we would like to thank our student research assistants: Francis 

DeLuca, Liz Driscoll, Ryan Gilmore, Joshua Hudson, Ryan Leavens, Brittany Maravelias, Neha 

Rajbhandary, Sean Rogers and Lindsey Viera as well as our transcriptionist Lara Jackson. 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault: A Replication Study in Six Jurisdictions 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The problem of sexual assault case attrition persists. For decades, studies have consistently 

reported that the majority of sexual assault complaints are not reported to the police and those 

that are reported are unlikely to end in arrest and as a result very unlikely to end in conviction. 

In 2010, Spohn and Tellis (2012a) were funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to 

conduct research with the Los Angeles Police and Sheriff’s departments (LAPD & LASD)

designed to understand better both how the criminal justice system processes sexual assault 

complaints and where case attrition occurs. Their findings revealed that attrition continues to be 

a problem and that further investigation into the differences in rates of case attrition across a 

multitude of jurisdictions was warranted. In 2012, we were funded by NIJ to replicate this 

study in a sample of six jurisdictions across the country. The main objectives of the study were 

to: 

 Examine and document the extent of sexual assault case attrition at multiple sites and the 

factors that influence attrition (e.g., political and geographical location, organizational 

structures, and operational approaches). 

 Investigate the case complexities and evidentiary factors that impact attrition in sexual 

assault cases and how they vary across sites. This includes understanding victim 

recantation, the possibility of false reports and other investigative complexities as well as 

their effect on officer and district attorney decision making. 

 Explore the case, victim and offender factors associated with police unfounding 

decisions. 

 Examine the use of ‘clearance by exceptional means’ and all other outcomes in the police

and prosecutorial processing. 

 Understand the experiences of survivors with the criminal justice process across multiple 

sites. 

 Explore and document the experiences of police detectives and district attorneys who 

investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases across multiple sites. 

 Understand how community characteristics (e.g., ethnic and racial composition of the 

community; presence of special victims; new immigrant populations) impact patterns of 

attrition of sexual assault cases? 

 Document the challenges of conducting replication research regarding sexual assault case 

attrition and demonstrate how replication research be made relevant to the field and be 

used a starting point for future research including providing a baseline for future studies 

of changes in the administration of justice (e.g., the new UCR definition) and the impact 

of these and other innovations and changes on SV case attrition. 

Our replication did little to allay the concerns that arose from the Spohn and Tellis (2012a, 

2012b) findings. We found considerable attrition in the early stages of case processing. Although 

our site comparisons revealed some interesting differences in case attrition, a consistent finding 

for all sites was that, only a minority of reports of sexual assaults (less than one in five) were 

cleared by arrest. In the Los Angeles agencies examined by Spohn and Tellis and in our 

I 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

replication study, at least 30% of cases where it is presumed that probable cause for arrest exists, 

in fact, did not result in arrest but instead were “cleared by exceptional means.” Our smallest 

replication sites had lower rates of clearance by exceptional means than did larger jurisdictions 

but revealed greater attrition at later stages in the process. While this study identified some key 

differences in attrition timing across sites, our findings generally revealed significant levels of 

sexual assault case attrition. 

Research Design 

We used a multi-stage purposive sampling framework to select study sites. The approach 

considered urban, suburban and rural locations and was informed by key police organizational 

factors, populations served, geographic proximity, quality of prosecution and police records 

management systems, and, perhaps most important, the cooperation we received from the 

police and prosecution agencies. We further prioritized agencies that were using automated 

records management systems and participated in the National Incident Based Reporting System 

(NIBRS). With the assistance of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) we were able to 

gain the cooperation and participation of six police agencies. 

Our approach to the sexual assault case process analyses was by design similar to that used 

by Spohn and Tellis. Using NIBRS definitions of sexual assault, we selected the population of 

sexual assault cases reported to the police for the years 2008-2010 for each site. Added to these 

records were agency reports of unfounded sexual assault cases since those were not officially 

reported to NIBRS. We tracked rape and attempted rape cases, beginning with the initial police 

incident reports, through the arrest and prosecution stages and concluding with convictions and 

sentencing outcomes. We documented the flow of these reports through each stage and 

examined patterns of attrition and the stages at which attrition was likely to occur to compare 

the results across sites and with the Spohn and Tellis study to identify similarities and 

differences in case attrition. 

In each site we obtained detailed case records on the population of reported rape and 

attempted rape cases (with victims over age 12) to provide in-depth understanding of the 

dynamics of sexual assault cases reported to each agency including victim, offender and case 

characteristics. In addition, we conducted interviews, field observations and focus groups with 

key personnel that allowed us to further examine organizational and cultural dimensions to 

handling sexual assault cases in order to understand how these factors influenced case 

outcomes. 

Main Findings 

Our replication findings did little to allay the concerns that arose from those of Spohn and 

Tellis and we identified considerable attrition in the early stages of case processing across all six 

sites in our sample. 

 Across sites, arrest outcomes were similar, but smaller jurisdictions were more likely to 

leave cases open and less likely to clear cases than medium or large jurisdictions. 

 Case outcomes in the replication study were more in line with those reported in LAPD 

than LASD. 

 Although our site comparisons revealed some interesting differences in case attrition, a 

consistent finding for all was that only a minority of reports of sexual assault were 

cleared by arrest. 

II 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

 In the Spohn and Tellis LA study sites and in our replication study, at least 30% of cases 

presumed to have probable cause for arrest, in fact, did not result in arrest but were 

“cleared by exceptional means.”

 Results did vary across jurisdictions. The smallest replication sites (population of about 

100,000) had lower rates of clearance by exceptional means than did the larger 

jurisdictions. The smallest sites had more attrition at later stages in the process (i.e., post 

arrest) than the larger sites. In the jurisdictions with lower proportions of cases resulting 

in exceptional clearance, the district attorney declined to file charges in 50% of the cases. 

 The unfounding of cases was relatively rare among all agencies in our sample regardless 

of agency characteristics. 

Patterns of Case Attrition 

 Between 2008-2010, 3269 complaints of sexual assault were reported to one of the six 

jurisdictions in our sample2

. 

 This replication study reports results on case attrition for the 2887 female victims who 

reported sexual assault. Of 2887 cases, 1404 (48.6%) of cases were cleared by the police. 

Of all cases, 544 (18.8%) of cases were cleared by arrest and 860 (29.8%) were 

exceptionally cleared. 

 Of 2887 cases, 1215 (42.1%) of cases were listed as open/inactive and 56 (1.9%) of cases 

were listed as investigation continuing. 

 Of 2887 cases, 212 (7.3%) of cases were unfounded by the police. 

 Of the 504 adults arrested, charges were filed in 363 (72%) of cases and charges were 

declined in 115 (22.8%) of cases where an adult was arrested. 

 In 354 cases where charges were filed, 189 (53.4%) of those arrests ended with a guilty 

verdict. Of 189 cases ending in a guilty verdict, 153 (81%) of those guilty verdicts were 

the product of a plea bargain. 

 Of 189 cases ending in a guilty verdict, 7 (3.7%) of cases involved a guilty finding by a 

judge and 25 (13.2%) involved a guilty finding by a jury. In only 11 cases (5.8%) a jury 

acquitted the defendant following a trial. 

 This study found that of 2887 reported to the police across all 6 sites, only 43 cases 

(1.5%) were tried in court. 

Factors associated with case outcomes 

 Size of jurisdiction was important. Across replication sites, arrest outcomes were similar, 

but smaller jurisdictions were more likely to leave cases open than medium or large 

jurisdictions. 

 Like Spohn and Tellis, multivariate analyses predicting arrest showed that legal or 

evidentiary factors were significant predictors of arrest and that the effects of case 

characteristics were independent of jurisdiction type. 

2 Cases were collected from 2006-2012 in our smallest sites to insure a large enough sample of sexual assault 

complaints for statistical analysis and comparison to medium and large sites. This number includes cases reported by 

males, however our detailed analyses of predictors of attrition relies on the sample of 2887 reports by females as a 

replication of Spohn and Tellis’ work.

III 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

 A case with a victim who cooperated with the criminal justice system was the strongest 

predictor of arrest across all jurisdictions. Cases involving intimate partners were also 

significant predictors of arrest for all jurisdictions. 

 Non-stranger perpetrators had higher odds of arrest compared to strangers for medium 

and large jurisdictions. 

 Medium and large jurisdiction results also showed that factors related to questions about 

victim credibility significantly decreased the likelihood of arrest although the type of 

credibility indicators varied. 

 Race of the victim was a significant predictor of arrest only for small sites and higher 

odds of arrest were found for incidents involving black victims. 

 Within each jurisdiction size group (with the exception of the medium site) the 

significance of specific site indicators revealed that differences in the odds of arrest 

remained after controlling for other factors. This was in contrast to Spohn and Tellis who 

did not find a significant effect for site (comparing LAPD and LASD) in their 

multivariate analysis of arrest outcomes. 

 Analyses of the replication sites show that there were extra-legal factors that significantly 

predicted arrest and tended to be those factors related to challenges to the credibility of 

the victim. This was in contrast to Spohn and Tellis who found that arrest was unrelated 

to whether victims had mental health issues or engaged in “risk taking” behavior. 

 Spohn and Tellis did not find any effect of victim race on the likelihood of arrest. The 

replication, however, did reveal that incidents involving black victims were more likely 

than those reported by white victims to end in an arrest. 

 Indicators of victim resistance were predictive of arrest across all relationship types in the 

replication study in contrast to Spohn and Tellis. 

 Victim cooperation was found to be a significant predictor of arrest across all relationship 

types in both studies in predicting arrest. 

 The replication revealed differences in arrest decisions by jurisdiction size for nonstranger and intimate partners. 

Overuse of Exceptional Clearance 

 Exceptional clearance was used in cases where probable cause existed to make an arrest, 

suggesting overuse. 

 In exceptionally cleared cases suspects were most likely to be non-strangers (in both the 

Spohn and Tellis and replication study.) 

 In alignment with Spohn and Tellis, the replication findings supported the existence of a 

screening process of cases that occurred at the pre-arrest stage. Cases with factors that 

may be considered as challenging to prosecution were rejected at the pre-arrest stage, for 

example, incidents with a victim who engaged in “risk taking” behavior, had mental 

health issues, could not recall assault details or delayed reporting; cases which lacked 

witnesses and physical evidence; and those where the victim was deemed to be 

uncooperative were screened out. 

 Significant factors associated with attrition at post arrest stage included questions about 

victim character, motive to lie, cooperation, weapon use and availability of eyewitnesses. 

The key questions at the post arrest charging stage for both studies were: was the victim 

IV 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

believable; was there corroboration or other evidence of seriousness; and will the victim 

cooperate? 

 Victims who reported to have physically and verbally resisted and with many reported 

injuries were found in cases that were exceptionally cleared across both studies. 

 Alcohol use was crucial to understanding the exceptional clearance decision. In the 

replication study, there was a greater likelihood of victims drinking associated with 

exceptional clearance than in the Spohn and Tellis study. 

 Cases cleared by exceptional means were more likely to involve suspects who claimed 

consent or fabrication in the replication than in the Los Angeles study. 

Unfounding of Cases 

 Like Spohn and Tellis, a complaint was more likely to be unfounded by police if the 

victim alleged that she was assaulted by a stranger than by a non-stranger or intimate 

partner. 

 Unlike Spohn and Tellis, we found few instances of unfounding across all six sites. We 

were unable to conduct cross-site comparisons due to the small number of unfounded 

cases in our population. 

 The replication study found no evidence of a relationship between the decision to 

unfound and notation of victim mental health issues. 

 Recantation by the victim was the most important predictor of the police decision to 

unfound a case. The correlation between recantation and unfounding, however, was not 

as strong in the replication as it was in the Spohn and Tellis study. 

Prosecutors and Police Interviews 

We interviewed 18 sexual assault investigators across six sites. Our interviews made it clear 

that these are challenging cases to investigate and clear by arrest. The investigators offered their 

perspective of the challenges faced both by police and by victims. From their responses, it is 

clear that they believed that with increased resources, victims could have more support 

throughout the process and detectives would be able to better investigate the complaint. The 

complicated relationship with prosecutors also emerged throughout the interviews as well as the 

clear presence of a downstream orientation. 

We interviewed 24 prosecutors from the 6 jurisdictions. The prosecutors offered to the 

interviewers their understanding of the problem of case attrition and provided justifications for 

the process they employ in their decision-making. They emphasized the importance of the victim 

in all cases, stating the cases begin and end with the victim. They indicated the critical 

importance of plea-bargaining in adjudication of these cases, an observation born out in the 

quantitative data analysis we conducted. Although prosecutors stated that they were not assessed 

based on their conviction rates, they emphasized the need to determine and take forward those 

cases that will be most likely to reach a guilty verdict. The prosecutors were clear that many 

cases could not be taken forward for a variety of reasons which are reflected in our quantitative 

data analysis (e.g., issues that speak to victim credibility) but also stressed the need they felt to 

reduce the number of cases that a unit takes forward to a manageable level given the resources 

they had available, problems of prosecutor burnout, and the likelihood of conviction. 

 There is a lack of staffing continuity in these offices. Turnover was frequent. One ADA 

reported having worked for four different DAs. During the course of the study there was 

V 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

turnover in the elected DA in two of the six jurisdictions. In all of the jurisdictions there 

had been a change of DA or in the unit head during or since 2007 (the year in which the 

first sexual assault cases in the study were reported.) 

 There is some variation across sites in the involvement of prosecutors in the arrest 

decision. In some sites, prosecutors reviewed every case file and in others only the most 

difficult cases. Yet, across all sites, police reported a downstream orientation. That is, 

even if the prosecutor did not physically review the cases, the detectives had a good idea 

of whether the case would be pursued and made decisions accordingly. 

 Prosecutors made decisions in anticipation of how they believed a jury would respond to 

the evidence in a case. This means that cases that involved a consent defense were not 

often taken to trial. 

 Within policing, we found that sexual assault investigation had low prestige and was 

often under-resourced. This was problematic because sexual assault cases are resource 

intensive. 

 The transition of cases from police to prosecutor was not always seamless and some 

practitioners revealed that this was a key point where some victims ceased cooperation 

with the criminal justice system. 

 The replication data supported the claim by Spohn and Tellis that cases rejected by the 

prosecutor were more likely than those where charges were filed to be “he said/she said” 

cases where the victim alleged a sexual assault and the suspect claimed that the victim 

consented. 

Conclusions 

Concerning the conduct of replication research, our research demonstrated several 

important aspects of conducting such research. Replication of field research required 

considerable time and much attention to the careful measurement of outcomes. The replication 

research needed to attend to the parameters of the original work and obtain a clear description 

of the methods and measures. This replication research can be used as starting point for future 

research including providing a baseline for future studies of changes in the administration of 

justice and the impact of innovations and changes on SV case attrition. The replication research 

conducted here required sampling skills, data collection and data management and analysis 

expertise, and also an interpersonally skilled team and a management strategy designed to 

promote high levels of collaboration with a variety of agencies and stakeholders, complex and 

strategic decision-making capabilities, and the capacity to arrive at new solutions to 

methodological challenges that confronted the project at every turn. 

Concerning sexual assault case attrition, we found that: 

 Substantial attrition was pervasive in the criminal justice system. Similar to other studies, 

we found that most victims never received closure. 

 The vast majority of cases did not end in arrest and even fewer went trial. 1.5% of all 

complaints ended in a trial making it difficult to truly anticipate a jury’s response to 

evidence. 

 Both legal and extralegal factors impacted this decision making process. These factors 

varied across sites. Decision making in smaller jurisdictions was affected by different 

factors than in larger jurisdictions. 

VI 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

 Both the replication and Spohn and Tellis studies, multivariate analyses predicting arrest 

show that legal or evidentiary factors were significant predictors of arrest and that the 

effects of case characteristics were independent of jurisdiction type. However, our 

replication study also found that there were extra-legal factors that significantly predicted 

arrest, including race of the victim and those factors that challenged the character or 

credibility of the victim. 

 Unfounding was not a common disposition across the six sites in the study. In interviews, 

most detectives could not recall using this case disposition in the last year. Recantation 

was important predictor of unfounding in both studies but had a much smaller effect in 

the replication. 

 There were some difference and similarities in arrest predictors between the replication 

and Spohn and Tellis across relationship types. Where Spohn and Tellis did not find that 

victim characteristics were predictors of arrest by relationship, the replication did report 

some victim characteristics to be significant including credibility factors for all 

relationship types, race for non-strangers and age for intimate partners. 

 Indicators of victim resistance were also predictive of arrest of all relationship types in 

the replication study, but not by Spohn and Tellis. Weapon use and injury predicted arrest 

for intimate partner victims in both studies. Victim cooperation was found to be 

significant for all relationship types in both studies. 

 Exceptional clearance may be overused as a case disposition. 

 Police and prosecutors struggle with investigating and trying consent defense cases. 

The problem of sexual assault case attrition has persisted over many decades (McCahill, 

Meter & Fischman, 1979; Spohn & Tellis, 2012b) and although there have been many reforms 

and advances is seemingly somewhat resistant to reform efforts. While the majority of sexual 

assaults are never even reported to the police, even those complaints that are brought to police 

attention are unlikely to end in arrest and few of the reported rapes result in a conviction. Our 

research has identified considerable attrition in the early stages of case processing. Although 

our cross-site comparisons reveal some interesting differences in attrition, a consistent finding 

for all is that, only a minority of reports of sexual assault are cleared by arrest. 

An important theme identified by our interviews and focus groups with victim services 

providers is the need to educate the community about sexual assault so that there will be more 

support for victims, more understanding of what rape is, and ultimately in order to impact 

citizens who comprise the jury pools. Our research points to the potential of taking a broader 

societal focus to ultimately reduce the level of sexual assault case attrition. Such education may 

be needed to change the criminal justice system actors’ calculations of what a jury will do and 

may ultimately lower rates of case attrition. 

VII 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Executive Summary. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

REFERENCES 

McCahill, T., Meyer, L. C., & Fischman, A. (1979). The aftermath of rape. Lexington, MA: 

Lexington Books. 

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012a). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault in Los Angeles city and 

county: A collaborative study in partnership with the Los Angeles Police Department, 

the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the Los Angeles County District 

Attorney’s Office. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. 

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012b). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. 

Violence Against Women, 18(2), 169-192. doi:10.1177/1077801212440020 

VIII 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION I 

DECISION MAKING IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES: REPLICATION RESEARCH 

ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE CASE ATTRITION IN THE U.S. 

Introduction 

In 2012, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a solicitation to conduct research to 

replicate and expand upon the work of Spohn and Tellis (2012a). In 2013, we were funded to 

conduct this replication research in six sites across the United States. The central aims were to: 

(1) learn whether their findings were generalizable to other jurisdictions across the United States; 

(2) to understand whether and how exceptional clearance is used to close reports of sexual 

assault; and (3) to understand better how the criminal justice system (CJS) processes sexual 

assault complaints and where case attrition3 occurs. In the sections that follow, we provide our 

report from the replication study. 

We begin with a literature review on sexual assault case processing to illustrate the context 

and importance of attrition studies in furthering our understanding of the CJS response to sexual 

assault. Second, we discuss our study methodology. Third, we map the attrition of the replication 

study cases through the system comparing our findings to those of Spohn and Tellis (2012a) 

followed by a comparison of case characteristics. Then we present analyses that feature 

similarities and differences between the two studies regarding the complexity in decision-making 

including its occurrence in the context of a police-prosecutor relationships and how legal and 

extra-legal incident factors and agency factors impact attrition. 

Importance of Replication Research 

Concerning the conduct of replication research, the field has called for more replication 

science (McNeeley & Warner, 2015; Pridemore, et al. 2017). Replication of field research 

requires considerable time and much attention to the careful measurement of outcomes. Such 

research needs to attend to the parameters of the original work and obtain a clear description of 

the methods and measures. Replication research may provide a baseline for future studies of 

changes in the administration of justice and the impact of innovations and changes on case 

outcomes. Replication research requires sampling skills, data collection and data management 

and analysis expertise, and an interpersonally skilled team and a management strategy designed 

to promote high levels of collaboration with a variety of agencies and stakeholders, complex and 

strategic decision-making capabilities, and the capacity to arrive at new solutions to 

methodological challenges that confronts a replication project at every turn. 

Literature and the Relevance of Case Attrition Research 

After several decades of research on how the criminal justice system handles reports of 

sexual assault, the attrition of cases at the police and prosecutor stages continues to draw the 

attention of policymakers, victim advocates, and academics. Such attrition has implications for 

thousands of victims and their alleged offenders each year. In the age of new recognition of the 

nature and extent of sexual assault that comes from the #MeToo and other movements, attrition 

3 Case attrition—refers to the number cases that “drop out” at each stage of the criminal justice system.

Page 1 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

of cases is revived as a concern for citizens, survivors and their advocates, policymakers, CJS 

actors, and academics. 

The Center for Disease Control estimates that approximately 1 in 5 (21.3% or an estimated 

25.5 million) women in the U.S. reported completed or attempted rape at some point in their 

lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). There is much evidence that the majority of these sexual assault 

cases are never reported to the police (Rennison, 2002), but once reported many cases do not 

move forward to prosecution and fewer to conviction (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012). Despite 

recent efforts to address these issues (Police Executive Research Forum, 2012), estimates reveal 

that while attrition rates vary across jurisdictions, they persist at each stage of criminal justice 

system processing and are difficult to measure (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012). Many victims 

of sexual assault keep their victimization private and, even when they do disclose to others, the 

majority do not report the crime to police. Research from community samples indicates that 15-

20% of rapes are reported to police (Kilpatrick et al., 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). While 

researchers have noted an increase in reporting to the police based on national self-report studies, 

with particular increases in reporting of rape by a non-stranger, this pattern is thought to reflect a 

more general phenomenon of an increase in reporting violent crime, rather than as a consequence 

of rape reform laws (Felson & Parè, 2005; Wolitzky-Taylor, Resnick, McCauley et al., 2011). 

Victims’ concerns with law enforcement biases and ineffectiveness of the criminal justice 

response contribute to the decision not to report a sexual assault. Given the evidence to date that 

the overwhelming majority of cases reported to the police do not end in an arrest or conviction 

(Pattavina, Morabito & Williams, 2016; Spohn & Tellis, 2012a, 2012b), these fears appear to be 

supported. While it has been very clear that case attrition occurs, it has been less certain at 

exactly what point in the process sexual assault cases fall out of the CJS and the extent to which 

such attrition is comparable across jurisdictions. 

Police Decision-Making in Cases of Sexual Assault 

Current estimates show that rates of attrition persist and vary across jurisdictions. Recent 

research of (Spohn & Tellis 2010, 2012a, 2012b) supports a decades-old conclusion (McCahill, 

Meyer, & Fischman, 1979; LaFree, 1981) that most sexual assault complaints reported to the 

police do not end in an arrest, a trial or a conviction. 

When a crime is reported the police have considerable discretion in how they respond. They 

decide whether to officially record the incident, how much investigative effort they will put into 

solving or “clearing” the offense, and whether to make an arrest. Research on the initial stages of 

a police investigation into a sexual assault allegation has examined factors leading to the police 

founding decisions (reflecting that the police believe a crime has been committed and intend to 

proceed with an investigation) and studies show that both legal and extra-legal factors are 

associated with police decision making. Legal factors are those that indicate evidence of a crime 

as defined by statute. Extra-legal factors are legally irrelevant victim, suspect or other 

characteristics associated with an incident. Kerstetter (1990) found that legal factors, such as use 

of a weapon, injury, and suspect custody status predicted the founding of a crime. Extra-legal 

factors also played a role in the founding decision. In incidents involving acquaintances the 

founding decision was predicated on if there was discrediting information about the victim and 

evidence of victim resistance. 

The influence of extra-legal factors such as characteristics of victim and the incident suggest 

that female victims who do not meet behavioral expectations and challenge notions of victim 

Page 2 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

consent and culpability may be unlikely to be supported by the criminal justice system (Spears 

and Spohn, 1997). For example, women who were drinking or using drugs, spent time at a bar 

with their assailants, or engaged in other behavior that may be considered “unfeminine” or “risk 

taking” may not be considered to be genuine victims (Morabito, Pattavina, & Williams, 2016).

Police are more likely to unfound cases where there were questions regarding the victim’s moral 

character or credibility and when victims were found to be unwilling to cooperate with the 

investigation (LaFree, 1989). Alderden and Ullman (2012a) reported that cases where there were 

discrepancies noted in victim’s statements were more likely to be unfounded. 

In addition to the research demonstrating how legal and extra-legal factors predict the police 

decision to found, legal factors have been found to affect arrest decisions. Offense seriousness 

measures including crime co-occurrence (Bouffard, 2000), use of a weapon (Bouffard, 2000; 

Spohn & Tellis, 2012a), and victim injury (Spohn & Tellis, 2012a) increase the likelihood of 

arrest. A lapse of time in reporting may impact evidence collection and explain how a delay in 

reporting reduces the likelihood of arrest (LaFree, 1989; Spohn & Tellis, 2012a). 

Regardless of case strength, extra-legal factors are found to be salient in empirical studies 

investigating the arrest decision. Similar to Spohn and Tellis (2012a), Alderden and Ullman 

(2012a) found that victim resistance to an assault increased the likelihood that an arrest would be 

made as did victim willingness to cooperate with the investigation. In addition, the nature of the 

relationship between victim and offender has been found to condition the effects of case 

characteristics on the likelihood of arrest. Case factors indicating the strength of the evidence 

such as prompt reporting, the number of witnesses and the collection of physical evidence were 

significant predictors of arrest in non-stranger cases, but not for cases involving intimate partners 

(Spohn & Tellis, 2012a). 

Similar findings have been documented in qualitative research. Rose and Randall (1982), 

relying on interviews and observations, examined how police use resources to build sexual 

assault cases to forward to prosecutors. They found legal factors to be important predictors of 

police decisions but found the importance of victim credibility to be uncorrelated (impacted by 

speed in reporting the assault, victim behavior at the time of the assault and the victim’s attitude

in dealing with the police). 

It is important to note that there are a variety of official explanations for why cases reported 

to the police can end in something other than arrest. First, police may elect to unfound a case if 

there is not sufficient evidence that any crime occurred. This “no crime” decision is the only

appropriate usage of “unfounding” as a clearance category and while there has been a reported 

decline in use by police of the “unfounding” classification in reports of alleged sexual assault, 

misuse of the power to unfound remains a serious issue in disposing of these cases (Police 

Executive Research Forum PERF, 2012). In the past, officers have unfounded complaints 

erroneously when they cannot substantiate evidence of physical trauma or because they believe 

that prosecutors would decline to pursue the case (PERF, 2012). Neither of these is a legitimate 

reason for unfounding a sexual assault claim. 

Once a case is founded, police are expected to document the conclusion or status of the 

police investigation for official recording. The case may maintain an open status if the 

investigation continues or may be cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Recent research 

conducted with police agencies across the U.S. documents that between 12% and 45% of cases 

reported to the police will result in an arrest (Spohn & Tellis, 2012a, Alderden & Ullman, 

2012a&b, Bouffard, 2000). In addition, once cases with probable cause to arrest reach the 

Page 3 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

prosecutor, rates of attrition continue and these also vary by jurisdiction with 39% (Alderden & 

Ullman, 2012 a&b) to 82 % (Spohn & Tellis, 2012a) resulting in charges being lodged. 

Prosecutorial Decision Making in Cases of Sexual Assault 

In the literature on attrition in sexual assault cases some studies have focused mainly on 

police decision making (Kerstetter, 1990, LaFree, 1989, Frazier & Haney, 1996) while others 

have examined the prosecutor decision to file charges (Spohn & Holleran, 2001, Spohn & 

Spears, 1997; Beichner & Spohn, 2012; LaFree, 1989) and case adjudication (Spohn, Beichner & 

Davis-Frenzel, 2001). A few recent studies in one or two jurisdictions have sought to understand 

the flow of cases as they move from police through prosecution and to tease out how decisions 

about which cases move forward are made (Holleran et al. 2010; Spohn & Tellis, 2011, 

2012a&b, Alderden & Ullman, 2012a&b). While some conceptualizations of case attrition imply 

that case processing proceeds in a one directional path from reporting through adjudication, 

recent work by Spohn and Tellis (2012a) and our work on police and prosecutor connections in 

exceptional clearance (Pattavina, Morabito, & Williams, 2016) reminds us that case attrition is 

much more complex. 

The literature on prosecutorial decision making in sexual assault cases has also taken into 

account legal and extra-legal factors in charging decisions and shows patterns similar to those 

found in the police research. According to a review of prosecutorial decision making research by 

Holleran, Beichner and Spohn (2010), legal factors such as the strength of the evidence available 

to a prosecutor emerge as primary motivators in the decision to file charges. Other important 

factors include injury and victim resistance (Spohn & Spears, 1996; Alderden & Ullman, 

2012a&b; Myers & LaFree, 1982), the presence of a weapon (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; 

Kerstetter, 1990, Spohn & Holleran, 2001; Holleran et al., 2010; Alderden & Ullman, 2012a), 

the availability of witnesses (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Myers & Lafree, 1982) and timing of the 

report (Beichner & Spohn 2005; LaFree, 1981; Spears & Spohn 1996; Alderden & Ullman, 

2012b). 

There is also evidence in the literature that the decision to charge is based on a combination 

of legal factors indicating the strength of physical evidence as well as extra- legal victim and 

suspect characteristics including race, victim risk taking behavior and the relationship between 

victim and suspect (Spohn & Holleran, 2001; Beichner & Spohn, 2012). Alderden and Ullman 

(2012a) found that prosecutors were less likely to approve felony charges when the sexual 

assault cases involved intimate partners compared to strangers. Other studies have found the 

opposite (Spohn et al. 2001) or no relationship between victim offender relationship and the 

decision to prosecute (Spohn & Tellis, 2012a). Still other studies have found that effects of the 

relationship between victim and suspect on charging decisions extend beyond relationship to also 

include the racial makeup of the victim-offender dyad (Spohn & Spears, 1996). Prosecutors tend 

to rely more heavily on physical evidence when there is a pre-existing relationship between the 

offender and the victim (Spohn & Holleran, 2001). While there is variability across studies about 

which legal and extralegal characteristics are likely to affect case outcomes and how they are 

measured, collectively they demonstrate that legal and extra-legal victim, suspect, and case 

characteristics should be considered in research on police and prosecutorial decision making in 

sexual assault cases. 

When a case is forwarded for prosecution, the assigned prosecutor (or in some jurisdictions 

a team of prosecutors) must decide whether or not the case merits prosecution and whether to 

Page 4 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

proceed with the case. The prosecutor generally does not have to explain why he or she elects not 

to prosecute a case. This has led some to conclude that the prosecutor is the most powerful 

person in the criminal justice system (Davis, 1969). While research on prosecutorial discretion 

has found that a variety of contextual constraints influence prosecutors’ decisions about whether

a case can and should be prosecuted (VERA, 2012) research focused on sexual assault cases has 

found that prosecutors’ charging decisions are largely based on the ‘winability’ of cases as 

operationalized by factors such as the perceived seriousness of the crime, the offender’s prior

criminal record, and the strength of the evidence in the case (Spohn & Holleran, 2001). 

Even after the decision to charge has been made, some cases still drop out of the system and 

do not proceed to adjudication. Prosecutors may nolle prosequi some charges and continue with 

others. At the disposition stage, a judge may dismiss a case, a defendant can plead guilty and if 

the plea is accepted by the court can forego a trial. A guilty plea may be entered at any point up 

until the completion of a trial. Lastly, there is the possibility of a trial by a judge or with a jury. 

Literature on Clearance of Cases 

While there is a growing body of research on the legal and extra-legal factors that predict the 

police and prosecutor decision making there are a significant number of cases in which a suspect 

is identified and probable cause exists for an arrest that still do not go forward. The observation 

that many cases do not progress through the system even after an alleged offender is identified 

and probable cause for arrest is present, combined with the wide variability in attrition of these 

cases seen across jurisdictions suggests the need for a better understanding of the mechanisms by 

which sexual violence cases fall out of the criminal justice system at this stage. 

Addington and Rennison (2008) used the National Incident Based Records System (NIBRS) 

to examine factors that predict clearance in sexual assault cases, but their measure combined 

both cleared by arrest and exceptional means. They found that factors that facilitated the 

“solvability” of the case, such as crime co-occurrence, use of certain weapons, home location 

and intimate partner relationship between victim and offender predicted case clearance. The 

analysis in their study was focused on predicting cases that are cleared or solved from those that 

go unsolved or remain open. This approach differs from an analysis that would seek to identify 

those factors that predict arrest versus exceptional clearance. In the latter type of analysis, the 

case is already considered “solved” by UCR standards, and thus factors of interest in predicting

exceptional clearance versus arrest focus on a different dimension of police decision making that 

comes after the case is ostensibly solved (a suspect is identified) and police are at the juncture of 

determining whether to make an arrest versus an exceptional clearance. 

Police use of clearance by exceptional means classification to officially close a case has 

been an option for UCR reporting since its inception in 1929 (Feeney, 2000). When crimes are 

reported to the police, the law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR program provide 

information on the status of a case and keep track of the incidents that are cleared. The two 

clearance categories used are cleared by arrest and cleared by exceptional means. According to 

the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (2004, pg.80), a case may be exceptionally cleared if 

the following criteria are met: (a) the police have definitely established the identity of the 

offender; (b) there is enough information to support an arrest, charge, and turning over to the 

court for prosecution; (c) the exact location of the offender is known so that the subject can be 

taken into custody; and (d) there is some reason outside law enforcement control that precludes 

arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender (emphasis added). 

Page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

The use of the exceptional clearance category to “clear” a case was originally intended for 

those rare cases where an offender is known and probable cause exists for arrest, but due to 

circumstances beyond the control of law enforcement, no arrest is made (Feeney, 2000). For 

purposes of official statistical reporting, jurisdictions may combine all cases that are classified as 

cleared (both by arrest and by exceptional means) which may give the public the impression that 

cases are “solved” and, most importantly, that more arrests are made (Jarvis & Regoeczi, 2009). 

The overestimation would be small if the exceptional clearance category was seldom used, but as 

Spohn and Tellis (2012a) report, in the jurisdictions they studied, significant numbers of sexual 

assault cases were classified as exceptionally cleared. 

The FBI UCR guidelines emphasize that in order for a case to be considered for exceptional 

clearance, all four criteria listed above must be met. Some circumstances that qualify for 

exceptional clearance include the death of an offender, the denial of extradition, the handling of 

juveniles for petty offenses, and victim refuses to cooperate in the prosecution. The guidelines 

indicate that the list is not all inclusive and that there may be other circumstances in which a law 

enforcement agency “is entitled to an exceptional clearance” (p.81). Included as official 

exceptional clearance reasons in the FBI’s more recent crime reporting program, the National 

Incident Based Reporting Program (NIBRS) are two exceptional clearance codes of particular 

interest in the study of sexual violence case attrition: First is “prosecutorial decline (for other 

than lack of probable cause)” meaning that the prosecutor does not accept the case for charging 

and, second, a code for “victim refused to cooperate” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008a). 

The mere existence of these categories as official reporting options has opened the potential for 

common use of this clearance code in closing challenging sexual assault cases. 

Research by Bouffard (2000) suggests that different processes may distinguish exceptional 

clearance outcomes from others. He compared four types of sexual assault case outcomes: arrest, 

open, unfounded, exceptional clearance by victim refuses to cooperate and prosecution declined. 

The results indicated that different factors predicted each type of case status. For example, he 

found that a prior relationship between the victim and suspect increased the probability that a 

case would be exceptionally cleared. The rationale that ‘victim refuses to cooperate’ was more

likely when there is a prior relationship. In contrast, a prior relationship with the suspect, in the 

context of victim agreement to undergo a sexual assault exam, predicted closure by 

‘prosecutorial decline’. While the Bouffard study illustrates the value of studying case status 

outcomes separately, his inclusion of cases with open and unfounded status as comparison 

groups in the sample along with cases cleared by arrest and exceptional means does not allow for 

the separate distinction in outcome comparisons between those cases cleared by arrest and each 

exceptional means category. Comparing both of the cleared by exceptional means categories 

with arrest would provide a more concise comparison of factors that predict outcomes because 

probable cause for an arrest has ostensibly been established for each case as required by UCR 

guidelines. 

The recent work by Spohn and Tellis (2012a) conducted in Los Angeles, took up this more 

concise comparison. Central to their study was consideration of how official reporting standards 

for classifying the way cases are cleared or solved by police were applied to incidents of sexual 

assault. According to their report, 46% of sexual assault incidents reported to the Los Angeles 

Police Department (LAPD) were officially classified as cleared or solved by the police. Though 

“solved” many of these incidents (33.5% of all cases or 73% of the cleared cases) did not 

Page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

actually result in an arrest, but instead were cleared “by exceptional means” (using the UCR

classification). 

The work of Spohn and Tellis (2012a) highlighted the importance of the police-prosecutor 

relationship in the arrest and clearance decisions, although even before sexual assault cases move 

to the prosecutor for consultation, the police customarily assess the victim’s willingness to 

cooperate with the prosecution. In some cases, where probable cause for an arrest exists, the 

police assess reluctance of the victim to move forward with the prosecution, or perhaps may have 

heard a victim state that she did not want the case to go forward. Under these circumstances, the 

police may make the decision to arrest and send the case for prosecution regardless of their 

assessment of victim willingness to proceed, or they may clear the case by exceptional means 

and record victim unwillingness as the reason for clearance. Such assessment of victim 

willingness to cooperate with police during the course of an investigation has been identified as a 

significant predictor of arrest in sexual assault incidents. 

Literature on Victim Cooperation 

There is an extensive literature that addresses factors that (post-report to the authorities) 

contribute to victim reluctance to follow through with the prosecution of an identified suspect. 

Personal circumstance such as extreme poverty or geographic isolation may prevent victims from 

gaining assistance from advocates or criminal justice authorities (DeKeseredy & Joseph, 2006, 

Lewis, 2003). Victims may also decline to cooperate because of shame, fear of retaliation, or 

experiences of secondary victimization by criminal justice or victim service agents (Herman, 

2003). Victims may be judged to be uncooperative if they are difficult to locate. Such difficulties 

may occur for a number of reasons including some related directly to the victimization 

experience (such as a change of residence due to fears of further contact with the alleged 

perpetrator or reminders of the assault) or due to life circumstances that contribute to housing 

instability (McCahill, Meyer & Fischman, 1979). During the course of a sexual assault 

investigation, the police may communicate to victims that the complaint may not result in 

prosecution (Campbell, 2005). Police interactions with victims may be influenced by their own 

perceptions about what types of cases and which complainants will appear sympathetic to the 

court, or police may be reacting to their assessment and knowledge of the types of cases the 

prosecutors are likely to accept for prosecution. 

The Relationship Between Police and Prosecutor 

As cases move from the police to the prosecutorial charging stage, it is reasonable to expect 

that in the normal course of business the police and prosecutors will work together in building 

cases for the prosecution (Jacoby, 1980; American Bar Foundation, 2013). While it may appear 

typical that prosecutors would generally be presented with cases for charging decisions after an 

arrest has been made by police, discussions and interviews with key actors reflect awareness that 

decision making is in reality more fluid across the system and agency boundaries. Roles and 

responsibilities for decision making in sexual assault cases can be blurred. 

Evidence illustrating the blurring of boundaries is reported in Spohn and Tellis (2010). 

Through interviews and case reviews, they found regular consultation between the District 

Attorney and police prior to the arrest decision. Their findings demonstrate the importance of 

considering expanded prosecutorial discretion that extends to early stages in the criminal justice 

process and overlaps with police discretion. Their work elucidates the connection between police 

Page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

and prosecutors suggested by those who have sought to explain the role of prosecutors in a larger 

systemic context. Jacoby (1980) describes a continuum of increasing discretionary power 

available to a prosecutor in relation to police. 

On the left are those prosecutors who interpret their role as an arm of the law 

enforcement agency and who unquestionably prosecute all arrests. As the 

prosecutor begins to use his discretionary power, the decisions by the police are 

more apt to be overturned or modified. At the far right on the continuum are the 

prosecutors who have assumed a policy making role in the community. Not only 

are police arrests subject to change under these circumstances, but more directly 

the arrest policies and procedures in the community may be affected by the 

prosecutorial policies and standards (p.113). 

Spohn and Tellis (2011) show evidence in Los Angeles of prosecutors operating more 

toward the right side of the continuum by exerting influence at the pre-arrest stage. If this 

practice is likely to influence arrest policies and procedures as suggested by Jacoby (1980) then 

it becomes necessary to contemplate the ways in which prosecutorial concerns about case 

processing may get reflected back to decision making at the arrest stage and what this means for 

victims. There is research to suggest that if elected prosecutors are concerned about maintaining 

high conviction rates, then they may be more likely to avoid risk and reject cases that they 

believe they cannot win in court. For politically motivated prosecutors who adhere to this 

standard, convictability becomes the most important criterion for selecting cases that will go to 

trial (Frohmann, 1991; Albonetti, 1986). This is a sustainable practice since according to Misner 

(1996) prosecutors have the opportunity to evaluate all cases presented by the police and have 

broad discretion to determine which cases should be tried. 

The thought process by which prosecutors consider possible case outcomes in their decision 

making has been presented in the literature as a “downstream orientation” (Frohmann, 1997, 

Holleran et. al, 2010). Proponents of this perspective argue that decisions made by prosecutors 

are influenced by what may happen as cases move further along in the process. This same 

process may also apply to how the police may deal with sexual assault. For example, police do 

not want to spend resources on cases that they know will not result in prosecution and 

prosecutors will not pursue cases that might negatively affect their conviction rate. This means, 

however, that the quality of the investigation and general processing of sexual assault cases 

might be affected by the consideration by criminal justice actors of how the rest of the system 

might react to the crime. 

In situations where a pre-arrest consultation takes place between police and prosecutors, if 

the prosecutors do not want to pursue the case because they are not confident in securing a 

successful prosecution, the police must decide whether to go ahead with the arrest or make use of 

‘prosecution declined’ exceptional clearance as the official resolution of an incident. Even in 

cases where there is an identified suspect, a cooperative victim and enough evidence for arrest, 

the police may elect to exceptionally clear the case if prosecutors are not likely to file charges. 

Some research describes how prosecutorial charging practices influence how police handle cases. 

According to Lord and Rassel (2000), police are reluctant to pursue cases where the victim was 

intoxicated because prosecutors were unlikely to bring charges. While Spohn and Tellis (2012a) 

did note that some police officers indicated they were willing to move forward with arrests that 

Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

may not be accepted for prosecution, the sizeable number of cases cleared exceptionally suggests 

that other relational dynamics between the police and prosecutor are at play. 

A downstream orientation may have consequences for how police adapt their approach to 

sexual assault investigations in ways that have negative outcomes for victims, even for those 

cases where probable cause for an arrest exists. As the police come to understand the types of 

cases most likely to be accepted for prosecution, they may convey that information to victims 

during an investigation. Spohn and Tellis (2012a) reported that victims are vulnerable to how 

their case will be received by police and are hesitant about reporting crimes that may seem 

unbelievable to police and prosecutors. How the police approach the investigation and the cues 

they send about likelihood of conviction can amplify those sensitivities in a way that may lead 

victims to not want to pursue prosecution. The result will be that the case will be cleared 

exceptionally by victim refuses to cooperate with the prosecution. 

The downstream orientation is facilitated by what has been described in the literature as a 

focal concerns approach to the handling of cases (Holleran et al.2010; Steffensmeier, Ulmer & 

Kramer, 1998). The focal concerns perspective has been used to explain how judges make 

sentencing decisions. Steffensmeier et al. (1998) identify offender blameworthiness, community 

safety, and practical constraints and consequences as key concerns. Since complete information 

about cases and defendants is often lacking, judges adopt a perceptual shorthand that looks 

beyond the legally relevant variables to make decisions based on stereotypes related to victim or 

suspect characteristics. Holleran et al. (2010) extended the focal concerns application to 

prosecutors and argue that practical constraints and consequences at this stage include 

consideration of how incidents will be viewed downstream by judges and jurors. They found 

some support for the focal concerns perspective in their research on decision making in sexual 

assault cases in Kansas City where case screening is based on maximizing trial success. 

Specifically, they found that police and prosecutors are more likely to be in agreement about 

charging when evidence is strong: the assault was perpetrated by a stranger, there was a weapon 

used and the victim sustained injuries—in short when the case met the clear definition of a 

“legitimate rape”. 

Case Flow and Management—Size of Jurisdiction and Other Organizational Features 

Lacking in the literature are investigations into how practical constraints regarding 

organizational operations such as case flow management (Steffensmeier et al. 1998) or workload 

demands may translate into case screening of sexual assaults. Decision making in this context is 

driven by agency policies that maximize system efficiency. According to Jacoby (1980) “the 

existence of the system efficiency policy usually indicates a backlogged court and overworked 

prosecutors with limited resources. Of necessity, system efficiency means that prosecutors must 

place emphasis on pretrial screening” (p.202). Under these circumstances, the weak cases are

removed from the system at the earliest opportunity. These limitations may force actors in some 

agencies, including police agencies, to make greater use of perceptual shorthand to handle weak 

or difficult cases as suggested by the focal concerns perspective (Pattavina et al. 2016). 

National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and Clearance by Exceptional Means 

Data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) reveal that clearance by 

exceptional means is indeed a fairly common practice that occurs across a multitude of police 

jurisdictions. Forty-five percent of incidents of sexual assault for female victims age 13 and older 

Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

reported to NIBRS from 2008 to 2010 were cleared by exceptional means (Pattavina, Morabito, 

& Williams, 2016).4 If the factors predicting which cases are cleared as ‘victim refused to 

cooperate’ are the same as those predicting which cases are cleared as ‘prosecution declined’, 

then there is support for the argument that there exists a close relationship connecting police and 

prosecutorial decision-making that warrants further investigation regarding the processing of 

sexual assault cases. One possible dynamic is that the police make decisions based on past 

experiences with cases most likely to be accepted for charging by prosecutors and thus 

discourage victim commitment to move forward in cases with similar characteristics to those 

likely to be rejected by the prosecution. The implications of this approach are that reported 

incidents may not be fully investigated, offenders will not be arrested, and ultimately victims 

may be denied the opportunity to bring their case before the court. 

In their research, Spohn & Tellis (2012a) made a significant contribution to our 

understanding of attrition points in cases of sexual assault and the factors related to case attrition 

at the policing and prosecutorial stages. Their review of the existing studies on the subject 

revealed inconsistent methodologies and findings that left many questions unanswered. Their 

general assessment of available literature suggested that, while legal factors such as the 

seriousness of the crime and the strength of the evidence influence case processing decisions, 

other case factors, such as victim characteristics, also have an important role in case processing 

decisions. In our research we test whether their findings can be replicated in different agencies 

across the country in an attempt to better understand the attrition of sexual assault cases from the 

criminal justice system. 

Methods 

The current report presents findings from this replication of the research using data collected 

in multiple sites across the U.S. Given the importance of this topic—it was viewed as crucial to 

understand better the generalizability of the Spohn and Tellis (Spohn & Tellis, 2012a; Spohn & 

Tellis, 2012b) findings on case attrition. 

Our data on sexual assault reports made to the police were collected at six departments in 

four states and also from their corresponding public prosecutor’s office. The data covered the

years 2008-2010.5 Our approach was designed to enhance our understanding of sexual assault 

case attrition, and to give context to the findings of Spohn and Tellis —namely to test the 

reproducibility of a map of sexual violence case attrition across multiple sites and to investigate 

if the findings in Los Angeles are typical of other police departments or are an anomaly. Spohn 

and Tellis obtained data on sexual assaults (rape and attempted rape) against female6 victims 

over the age of 12 that were reported from January of 2005 through December of 2009 to LAPD 

and LASD. They reviewed the records of these cases through the CJS. For complaints to LAPD 

or LASD that resulted in the arrest of an adult suspect, they obtained data on the outcome of the 

4 Estimate based on agencies reporting 4 or more incidents for the time period. 

5 In the small jurisdictions we extended the data collection to include 2006-2012 cases to permit collection of 

sufficient data. Spohn and Tellis cases are from the years 2005-2009. 

6 Spohn and Tellis cases included only reports by female victims. For purposes of comparability our replication 

therefore includes only reports of forcible rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object made by female victims. 

Page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

case from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.7 For purposes of the replication, 

we used Spohn and Tellis’s data collection strategies. 

Study Approach 

Site selection. The design of our research called for the methods of Spohn and Tellis to be 

applied to the data collected on sexual violence case attrition in our six new sites. This 

replication study relied on a carefully developed purposive site sampling strategy constructed to 

assure selection of sites that were most likely to contribute to an understanding of the diversity in 

jurisdictional response. These sites needed to be different enough from Los Angeles but have a 

sufficient number of reports of sexual assault for analysis to be meaningful. While a random 

sample of sites stratified by size might be ideal, the funding dictated selection of a relatively 

small number of study sites (6) from thousands of possible jurisdictions in the United States 

(U.S.) and, thus, did not lend itself to random sampling or even to stratified random sampling. 

We purposively selected study sites from different regions of the U.S. (Northeast, South, and 

West) and from within those, we selected urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions and those that 

represented diverse police organizational factors (Morabito, Pattavina, & Williams, 2017) and 

populations served. 

A high standard for, and the availability of, prosecution and police records management 

systems and cooperation from the police departments and prosecutors’ offices was also 

necessary. To accomplish this design goal, and because we were aware that most cases would 

not even reach the prosecutor stage, we began with the police department selection. We 

considered only those departments that submitted crime data to the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s (FBI) National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) program. 

NIBRS compliance helped to assure us that police records would be available in the same or 

a similar format and with the level of detail that we needed. Most importantly, NIBRS 

definitions were also used to establish which sexual offense reports would be used in the 

replication study. It is important to note that there is not a comparable reporting system for 

prosecution data—a serious challenge for any who conduct research on prosecutorial decisionmaking and case attrition and posing even more difficulty for anyone interested in replication 

research. 

Beyond NIBRS participation, sites were grouped for selection based on the following 

criteria: (1) geographic proximity of urban, suburban and rural departments to maximize site 

diversity but keep within the financial constraints of the research funding; (2) demographics of 

diversity including sites with substantial minority populations; (3) diverse organizational 

features; and (4) Records Management Systems that collect incident based crime reports. While 

most jurisdictions relied on an electronic records system, some had retained, or during the time 

period for which records were needed, only used a paper record-keeping system. 

As is mentioned above, we selected study sites from urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions 

and those that represented diverse police organizational factors and populations served. Quality 

7 Spohn and Tellis also obtained the complete police case files which they used for more detailed analyses for sexual 

assaults that were reported in 2008. They obtained case files for all reports that met selection criteria (N = 543) and 

due to the large number of cases reported to the LAPD in 2008, selected a stratified random sample of cases (N = 

401). For the purposes of comparison in this report we rely on the population of cases they reviewed from 2005-

2009. 

Page 11 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

of prosecution and police records management systems and cooperation from the police and 

prosecution were also necessary. 

Level 1: Geographic proximity of urban, suburban, and rural departments. There were 

several reasons why selecting geographic areas that are in proximity to each other, whether it be 

in the same county, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSAs) or state, made sense for this study. 

First, there were practical concerns from a resource perspective (e.g., staffing, travel costs, etc.) 

Second, several areas may be served by the same judicial district making comparisons within a 

site-cluster likely to provide meaningful insight about differences in small, medium, and largesized districts. Our first step in developing a sampling frame for site selection involved a very 

preliminary examination of MSAs in the Continental U.S. that met the following criteria: (1) are 

not located in California, and (2) include a large city and a suburban town or towns, and a rural 

town (or preferably county) within driving distance manageable for a site coordinator located 

within the MSA. 

Level II: Demographics of diversity. Next, we selected clusters of sites that presented 

opportunities to consider case demographics and retained in the sampling frame the clusters of 

sites with minority populations. 

Level III: Organizational features. Site selection included key organizational characteristics 

judged to be important to understanding how factors such as presence or absence of a special 

victims unit or other organization factors influence case attrition. Specifically, we included 

agencies that employ a variety of innovations in sexual assault investigation and reporting as 

well as relationships with prosecutor’s office and that were welcoming outside review of cases.

Level IV: Records Management Systems. We considered in the site selection process the 

quality of incident based reporting by police. We prioritized inclusion of agencies that use a 

records management system that collects incident based crime reports. In particular, we included 

agencies that participate in the NIBRS reporting program. The NIBRS system was designed to 

address may of the limitations of the older summary-based UCR system. When the FBI 

introduced the NIBRS to law enforcement, the new reporting system dramatically altered crime 

reporting in the U.S. Although the stated intent of the NIBRS is to serve as a national crime 

report, its design and structure provided the basic foundation for a local law enforcement records 

management system. The system provides incident level details on 46 different offenses that are 

reported to police (Faggiani and Hirschel, 2005). We included the forcible sex offenses of rape, 

sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. Use of these classifications helped us to exclude cases 

that were not in the Spohn and Tellis study (those with “only” reports of fondling and nonforcible sex offenses including incest and statutory rape for males and females). The 

standardization of collection methods permitted our comparisons across multiple sites. 

NIBRS data were also seen as instrumental to this study because, given that NIBRS is 

standardized reporting system across all agencies, many agencies that would meet selection 

criteria based on basic organizational features and populations served could be further examined 

via NIBRS data. For example, NIBRS helped us to locate information on rates of all sexually 

based offenses reported to the police and once selected we knew we would be able to obtain 

detailed information on victim characteristics, offender characteristics, arrestee characteristics, 

and the relationship between victim and offender (e.g. stranger, intimate partner, etc.). 

Examination of sexual assault incidents reported to the police and submitted to the NIBRS 

reveals that clearance by exceptional means is indeed a fairly common practice that occurs across 

a multitude of police jurisdictions. Forty-five percent of incidents of sexual assault for female 

Page 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

victims age 13 and older reported to NIBRS from 2008 to 2010 were cleared by exceptional 

means. 8 

The NIBRS data capture both ‘victim refused to cooperate’ and ‘prosecution declined’ 

exceptional clearance categories presenting a unique opportunity to not only explore the 

characteristics associated with the decision to exceptionally clear a case across a multitude of 

jurisdictions, but also to compare the influence of case characteristics on each of the exceptional 

clearance categories relative to arrest. NIBRS does not include cases that have been unfounded, 

so additional criteria for site selection included availability of local agency incident data on 

unfounded cases and access to these records for case review. 

Finally, we negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with six sites that met 

these criteria. All jurisdictions remain confidential by agreement and are known only to research 

staff and the Department of Justice and the principal investigators. For purposes of analyses, we 

have grouped the sites by size and based on population of the jurisdiction in 2010. We report key 

site demographics in Section II Table 4. These demographics are presented to assist in 

understanding the diversity of the sites as we map the case attrition outcomes. 

Throughout this report, we use the terms site, jurisdiction, and agency interchangeably. The 

reader should note that these refer to our six participating sites which include police and 

prosecuting agencies. 

Data Collection Methods 

Our research also used a mixed-method approach, including the collection of quantitative 

data from the police and prosecutor cases files and qualitative data in the form of interviews and 

focus groups with police, prosecutors, and victims service providers. While site selection, 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiation, and briefing of key personnel on-site, was 

ongoing, a data collection protocol and instrument was developed as a guide using the Spohn and 

Tellis codebook, dataset, and final report, which were downloaded from the National Archive of 

Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). All indicators included in these documents became part of the 

data collection form. We relied on the same parameters as Spohn and Tellis for case inclusion—

cases involving female victims 12 years of age and older, cases of reported sexual assault also 

including sodomy and statutory rape but excluding forcible fondling. Once the data collection 

form was developed, it was approved by the Institutional Review Board (and, if required, by 

local governmental authorities). Forms were pre-tested and refined and re-reviewed and then 

research assistants who were hired at each site (a total of 10 on-site research assistants were 

employed and trained by us during the data collection period) were trained in its use. Their 

training consisted of review of issues of confidentiality and organizational arrangements at each 

site, training on the data collection protocol and coding of responses, tests of reliability and at 

least bi-weekly call and communication for troubleshooting and re-training. 

Spreadsheets of relevant reported cases were consulted at each site to help us to identify the 

population of sexual assault cases reported to the police from 2008-2010 (2006-2012 in 3 smaller 

jurisdictions). These cases were then assigned to the study research assistants, who located the 

complete police record either in paper form or in an electronic record keeping file, reviewed the 

complete record, and then coded the record following our extensive data collection protocol. 

Reliability tests of the coding (see Appendix C) were conducted on a regular basis and problems 

8 Estimate based on agencies reporting 4 or more incidents for the time period. 

Page 13 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

which arose in the data collection (e.g., missing files, illegible files, decision making about 

proper coding when contradictory information was found in a case record, and confirmation of 

case report information accuracy by consultation with the local command) were reviewed in 

weekly calls with the research assistants at the study sites. The data collected was securely 

transmitted to the study site, reviewed by research assistants, cleaned, coded, and entered into 

SPSS. Data from all six jurisdictions were merged and prepared for analysis. 

In-depth case record review. In each site we obtained the detailed case records on all 

reported rape and attempted rape cases (with victims over age 12). For half of our sites, we were 

able to obtain detailed files from the prosecutor’s office and in the other sites, we had to rely on 

publicly available court records. Where we had access to prosecutor files, this review was 

conducted on premises. The level of access was solely dependent upon the level of cooperation 

of the prosecutor’s office in the research study which also changed over the course of the project 

due to staffing turnover. Regardless of data collection method, we were able to obtain necessary 

facts and information about the incidents such as the use of bail, the number of hearings, whether 

there was a trial, as well as case outcomes. To collect the necessary data, we matched each 

defendant’s name from police files where arrests were made or where cases were passed to 

prosecutors for direct indictment. Files and records were matched then for the specific complaint 

that involved sexual assault as reported to the police to ensure that we had identified the correct 

accused perpetrator for the appropriate crime. 

Once identified, these records permitted us to (where available) collect all the case 

characteristics that would permit a detailed understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault cases 

reported to each agency including victim, offender, and case characteristics. We reviewed all 

cases that fit the criteria of report date, victim age at time of report, and report of a felony rape or 

attempted rape. In addition to all reports of rape and attempted rape we included unfounded 

reports from each site during the time period studied. This approach ensured an adequate number 

of cases. 

Interviews and focus groups. Interviews and focus groups with key personnel were 

conducted to examine the organizational and cultural dimensions to handling sexual assault cases 

in order to understand how these factors influence case outcomes. Specifically, the interviews 

were designed to yield information about how organizations are structured and how practitioners 

function in the field from the view of police, detectives and prosecutors. We started with the 

population of all detectives and prosecutors that dealt primarily with sexual assault. In all of our 

police departments, there was either a special unit or designated personnel. Our strategy was to 

interview as many detectives as would speak with us and until we reached saturation. We 

originally intended to also interview patrol officers but quickly realized that they did not have 

enough engagement with sexual assault cases to be able to answer the interview questions. 

For prosecutors, some of the sites had designated prosecutors but most did not. For agencies 

with designated personnel, we sought to interview the population. For those without a special 

unit, we sampled prosecutors who focused on major crimes. Again, we interviewed prosecutors 

until we reached saturation. This qualitative component of data collection for the study involved 

a total of 42 interviews: we interviewed 18 sexual assault investigators across the six sites and 24 

prosecutors. 

Focus groups with victim service providers were conducted to provide critical information 

on service providers perspectives on the experiences of survivors in each jurisdiction. In the 

initial months of the project we will also conducted informational interviews and attended sexual 

Page 14 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section I. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

assault review team and coordinating committee meetings to gain a better understanding of the 

challenges they face and the experiences of victims. 

Data Analysis 

Quantitative data analyses. The police and court record review data were coded and entered 

into an SPSS file for archiving and analysis. These data were used to conduct multivariate 

logistic regression analysis to determine the relevant predictors of case outcomes in sexual 

assault cases. The analyses included in this report involve the total population of complaints of 

sexual assault made by female victims to the police. This includes complaints that were 

unfounded, ended in arrest, continue to be open/inactive, or investigation continuing. Analyses 

are conducted by site as well as grouped by jurisdiction size (i.e., small, medium, and large). We 

did not believe it was appropriate or instructive to measure outcomes of smaller sites against the 

outcomes of larger sites. Accordingly, there are comparisons within this report both across our 

own sites as well as to the findings of Spohn and Tellis. 

Qualitative analyses. Data from interviews and focus groups were transcribed (when 

consent is provided per IRB requirements) and the transcripts were analyzed for themes relevant 

to the replication using NVivo. NVivo is a computer assisted qualitative data analysis software 

program used for coding and interpreting textual and multimedia data. This software helped us to 

systematically analyze the complex phenomena on sexual violence case attrition. 

Page 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION II 

OVERVIEW OF CASE ATTRITION 

A key objective of this project was to identify the outcomes of sexual assaults reported to 

the police in 6 jurisdictions in the U.S. and compare these with the Spohn and Tellis (2012a) 

outcomes documenting where in the process attrition was likely to occur. As described above, 

each law enforcement agency provided us access to case records on all sex crimes that met our 

selection criteria and that were reported from January of 2008 to December of 2010 (except in 

three small jurisdictions where we were included cases from 2006 – 2012). We also were able 

to collect data on the court outcomes relying on data either from district attorneys’ offices or 

computerized court records. 

For this replication study and comparability we collected data on 2887 reports by female 

victims of sexual assault in the 6 jurisdictions. In this section we discuss and compare the 

overall outcomes that resulted from these reports to measure sexual violence case attrition. 

Summary of Outcomes 

Overall, case outcomes for the 2,887 sexual assaults reported to police in our sample (see 

Table II.2) were comparable to the results found in Spohn and Tellis’ (2012b) study (see Table 

II.1). A similar proportion of cases were considered cleared by the police (48% vs in Los 

Angeles cleared was equal to 45.7%) and a similar proportion were considered still continuing 

(44% vs. in Los Angeles (LA) it was 43.4%). We found 7% of cases were unfounded by the 

police compared to 10.9% in Los Angeles. We found that of the cases that were cleared, the 

majority were cleared by exceptional means (29% of all cases compared to 33.5% of all cases for 

LA.) An arrest in our study occurred in 18.8% of the cases compared to 12.2% of all cases for 

LA. See Section V for a detailed discussion of clearing cases by exceptional means. Of the 544 

(616 in LA) cases that were cleared by arrest, 504 (591 in LA) resulted in the arrest of at least 

one adult suspect (see Figure II.3, Figure II.5). In our study, the prosecutor filed charges in 363 

cases (72% of these cases resulted in an adult arrest; 486 cases had charges filed in LA or in 

82.2% of the arrests made) and charges were declined in 115 cases (22.8%) compared to 105 

cases (17.8%) in LA (see Figure II.3, Figure II.5). As Spohn and Tellis reported, this higher 

charging rate is sometimes found in studies of prosecutorial decision making in sexual assault 

cases. In our study, as in the Spohn and Tellis findings, this high rate of charges being filed by a 

prosecutor may reflect the fact that in many of our jurisdictions some or all of the cases are 

presented to the district attorney for a pre-arrest filing decision; if the district attorney’s office

representative believed that the case did not meet their filing standard of proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the case was rejected before the suspect was arrested and the case was then 

cleared by exceptional means. 

We will see that when the district attorney’s office screens out sexual assault cases where

the evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is a higher rate 

of conviction. In LA, Spohn and Tellis found a conviction rate of 80.2% and in our overall 

sample the rate was 54% but jumped to 70% in the jurisdictions where a high rate of clearance 

by exceptional means occurred. We found that there was a guilty plea or verdict in 189 cases and 

that of these 25 were convicted at a jury trial, while 11 were acquitted at trial. We found that 

charges were dismissed in 43 cases (12% of all cases in which charges were filed). Of the 189 

Page 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

defendants who were convicted, the majority (N = 164); 86.8% served some period of 

incarceration. 

Detailed Comparison of Our Study Results to the Spohn and Tellis Findings 

In this section we provide a detailed review of the Spohn and Tellis data for comparison to 

our study findings. Spohn and Tellis obtained data on sexual assaults (rape and attempted rape) 

against female victims 12 years of age and older reported to the Los Angeles Police Department 

(LAPD) and the Los Angeles Sheriff Department (LASD) from January of 2005 to December of 

2009. They reviewed the records of these cases as they continued through the CJS. For 

complaints to LAPD or LASD that resulted in the arrest of an adult suspect, they obtained data 

on the outcome of the case from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. These data 

were then used to document patterns of case attrition for sexual assaults reported during the 

study period.9 Spohn and Tellis data on the investigation outcomes for the LAPD are reported in 

Figure II.1 and the investigation outcomes for the LASD are reported in Figure II.2 and reflect 

the high proportion of cases that result in “cleared by exceptional means.

These findings are also displayed in several Figures (II.1- II.4) with Spohn and Tellis’s 

findings on the court outcomes for the LA cases (Figure II.3) reveal that, of the 616 cases cleared 

by arrest by LAPD (12.2% of the 5031 reports), 591 cases resulted in an arrest of at least one 

adult suspect (11.7% of the 5031 reported assaults). Figure II.3 provides the prosecutorial 

outcomes for the LA cases. Following the adult arrests, the District Attorney filed charges in 

82.2% of the cases. and charges were declined in 17.8% of cases. Of the cases where charges 

were filed, 9.1% (N=44) were still open at the time of the Spohn and Tellis study. The conviction 

rate for the 486 suspects against whom charges were filed was 80% (8% of all LAPD reported 

sexual assaults); charges were dismissed in 10% of the cases (N=47), and only five of the 

charged defendants (1%) were acquitted at trial. Of the 390 convicted offenders, 349 had pled 

guilty, 35 were convicted at a jury trial, and five were convicted at a bench trial. Of these 

convicted adults 59.2% received a prison sentence, 37% received a probation sentence, and 3.8% 

received a jail sentence. In short, 12% of the 5031 rape and attempted rape cases that were 

reported to the LAPD were cleared by the arrest of an adult suspect, 10% resulted in the filing of 

charges, 8% resulted in a conviction, and 5% resulted in a prison sentence. 

As displayed in Figure II.4, of the 770 cases that were cleared by arrest by LASD, 614 

involved the arrest of at least one adult suspect (that is, 27.1% of all reports). Following these 

adult arrests, the District Attorney’s Office filed charges in 66% of cases. A smaller proportion 

of cases investigated by the LASD resulted in the filing of criminal charges compared to the 

cases investigated by the LAPD (66% vs. 88.2%, respectively). If we add together the number of 

cases that were either exceptionally cleared or where charges were declined by prosecutors after 

an arrest was made this accounted for 63.6% of the LASD handled cases. A comparable figure 

for the LAPD handled cases was lower with 35.5% of all reports resulting in either an 

exceptional clearance or a declination to file charges post-arrest. For the LASD cases in which 

9 Spohn and Tellis also obtained the complete police case files which they used for more detailed analyses for sexual 

assaults that were reported only in 2008. They obtained case files for all reports that met selection criteria (N = 543) 

and, due to the large number of cases reported to the LAPD in 2008, they selected a stratified random sample of 

cases (N = 401). For the purposes of our replication study, we rely on comparison to the population of cases they 

reviewed from 2005-2009. 

Page 17 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

charges were filed, 34 cases (8.4%) were still open at the time of the Spohn and Tellis study. The 

conviction rate for the 405 LASD suspects against whom charges were filed was a comparable 

78.1%; charges were dismissed in 11.8% of the cases (N=48); and only seven of the charged 

defendants (1.7%) were acquitted at trial. Cases resulting in the conviction of an adult 

represented 13.8% of the LASD reported sexual assaults. Of these, 317 convicted adults 57% 

(N=179) received a prison sentence, over one-third (35.3%) were sentenced to probation, and 24 

(7.6%) received a jail sentence. In short, 27.1% of the 2,269 rape and attempted rape cases that 

were reported to the LASD were cleared by the arrest of an adult suspect, 17.8% resulted in the 

filing of charges, 13.9% percent resulted in a conviction, and 7.9% resulted in a prison sentence. 

Spohn and Tellis utilized administrative data and source data collected from case files to 

provide the most comprehensive analysis of sexual violence case attrition that had been 

conducted in 30 years. Consistent with concerns raised about SV case attrition in past studies 

(e.g., McCahill, Meyer & Fischman, 1979; Kerstetter, 1990) and more recent research (Kelly, 

2010; Campbell, 2005) Spohn and Tellis results suggested that there continues to be a pressing 

problem of high rates of sexual assault case attrition, despite the progress of the past 40 years. 

The need to explore these methods of case processing in other jurisdictions and learn more about 

the factors that are predictive of attrition were key goals identified by NIJ that led to the research 

reported here. 

This Project’s Overall Case Attrition Finding and Comparison to Spohn and Tellis

Figures II.5 and II.6 provide an overview of the case attrition findings for all cases from our 

6 study sites, N=2887 reports of sexual assault of a female. These figures include our findings 

about cases from initial complaint through to adjudication. For the purposes of this analysis, we 

relied on categories identical to the Spohn and Tellis study so that results could be compared. 

Table II.2 summarizes the 6 jurisdiction (In these tables our study is referred to as “RS” for

Replication Study) case attrition through adjudication paired with data from the Spohn and Tellis 

study for comparative purposes. Table II.3 illustrates that outcomes from our research are quite 

similar to those of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), but not to those of Los Angeles 

Sheriff’s Department (LASD). There were more cases cleared and specifically, more cases likely

to end in arrest in the Sheriff’s Department than in LAPD or in our 6 combined study sites.

In Table II.3, we placed our 6 jurisdiction RS study outcomes from arrest through conviction 

side-by-side with the Spohn and Tellis findings through conviction for comparison. The findings 

from all six sites have been merged for the Table II.3 comparison. We conducted a comparison 

of proportions to identify significant differences between our study findings and those of either 

LAPD or LASD. We found statistically significant differences in almost all outcomes. The 

magnitude of the differences was larger in general when we compared our findings to the LASD 

findings. Notably, reports of sexual assault from our 6 sites were less likely to be cleared than 

were the LASD cases (48% vs 88.4%) but were slightly more likely to be cleared than the LAPD 

cases (48% vs 45.7%). A similar pattern existed for comparison on cleared by arrest and cleared 

by exceptional means. LASD had the highest proportion of cases cleared by exceptional means 

(54%). LAPD took the lead in having more unfounded cases (10.1%). It is notable that LASD 

had many fewer (only 10.1%) open/active/continuing investigations. 

Once cases reached the prosecutor’s office we find that LAPD cases were more likely than 

our study sites or LASD to have had charges filed by the prosecutor. This may be a consequence 

of the high proportion of cases that were cleared by exceptional means at LAPD and thus 

Page 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

removed from the “caseload” of prosecutors. It also would have deflected the “burden” of the

prosecutor’s office handling many cases that may have had less sufficient evidence. LASD, 

however, had an even higher proportion of cases that were cleared by exceptional means and still 

had a low rate of cases in which charges were filed by the prosecutor. Finally, LAPD cases were 

more likely to result in conviction (often through a guilty plea) when compared to our study 

(80.2% vs 53.4%, respectively). 

Key site demographics are presented in Table II.4. These demographics are presented to 

assist in understanding the diversity of the sites and the context of the sexual assault case 

processing. In this table we grouped jurisdictions according to population size and labeled them 

small (100,000 population size), medium (300,000 population size), and large (600,000 

population size). Turning to Table II.5 for further understanding of our study sample case 

attrition findings we present a comparison of the six sites grouped by population size 

It is notable that we found no statistically significant difference in the “clearance by arrest” 

rate across site groupings. Comparisons of other outcomes, however, revealed meaningful and 

statistically significant differences. Regarding cleared by exceptional means, we found that the 

small size jurisdictions were much less likely to employ this approach to case clearance, perhaps 

because these jurisdictions were less likely to have a close working relationship between the 

police and prosecutor’s office. This possible disconnect was further evidenced by our finding 

that for the smaller agencies there was a lower proportion of cases where the prosecutor filed 

charges when compared to the larger jurisdictions and agencies. Smaller agencies had a larger 

proportion of cases categorized as still open (inactive or continuing) than the large or medium 

size jurisdiction agencies. These differences suggest that for smaller jurisdictions there may have 

been different organizational structures, relationships, and resources that altered the patterns of 

case handling and hence case attrition. The small jurisdictions also had the lowest rate of 

convictions. This suggests that perhaps more challenging cases made it to the prosecutor’s 

offices given that there was less use of clearance by exceptional means. This lower likelihood of 

clearance by exceptional means may have resulted in more cases that went forward but where the 

prosecutor did not ever file charges. When compared to large jurisdictions, the medium-sized 

agencies had higher rates of clearance by exceptional means and unfounding, and lower rates of 

open/ inactive cases. When charges were filed in these medium-sized jurisdictions, they were 

more likely to result in a conviction than in larger or smaller jurisdictions. This suggests that 

while “size” may matter and reduce case attrition in comparison to the small agencies, the 

medium-sized jurisdiction may have been more adept than the larger agencies at sorting through 

cases that were more likely to lead to successful prosecution. 

Examining the total map of case attrition in our study sample (see Figure II.5, Figure II.6) 

we find that of cases with charges lodged, the charges were dismissed in 12% of the cases and 

prosecutors decided not to go forward (nolle prosequi) in 5% of the cases. Of these cases the 

conviction rate, which is 53% (38% of cases where an adult was arrested), breaks down to 153 

defendants that plead guilty, 25 defendants that were convicted at a jury trial, and 7 defendants 

that were convicted at a bench trial. Eleven defendants were acquitted at trial. Of the 189 

convicted defendants, the overwhelming majority (N = 164; 87%) were sentenced to 

incarceration. The remaining 12% of the convicted defendants were sentenced to probation, 

although many others also were given probationary sentences along with their incarceration. 

The prosecutors in our study filed charges in 72% of the 504 cases that had resulted in the 

arrest of at least one adult suspect. This compares to 82.2% of the 591 cases that resulted in the 

Page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

arrest of at least one adult suspect in LAPD according to Spohn and Tellis. We found that the 

conviction rate for cases in which charges were filed was 53.4 percent. This is an unexpected 

difference from the Spohn and Tellis study where they found, in the LAPD sample, a conviction 

rate of 80.2 percent. However, it is important to point out that, in our research, 84 cases that did 

not move forward were included [as not convicted] in calculating this rate of conviction. Yet, the 

cases may not have actually been accepted by the DA, thus resulting in a higher conviction rate. 

Of the 390 defendants who were convicted from the Spohn and Tellis original study, 88% 

were incarcerated, and 52% were given probation. Charges were dismissed in only 8% of cases 

and prosecutors decided not to go forward (nolle prosequi) is 3% of cases. The conviction rate, 

which is 39%, breaks down to 177 defendants that plead guilty, 29 defendants that were 

convicted at a jury trial, and 7 defendants that were convicted at a bench trial. Twelve defendants 

were acquitted at trial. Of the 217 convicted defendants, the overwhelming majority (N = 191; 

88%) were sentenced to incarceration. Approximately half (52%) of the convicted defendants 

were sentenced to probation.10 The differences at key decision points are displayed in Table II.5 

and reveal some substantial differences in the findings between the sites and between studies. 

The Los Angeles District Attorney office was more likely to file charges in cases brought by 

LAPD than in cases brought by LASD. Our findings fall in the middle, suggesting that the police 

agency might affect the decision making of prosecutors. The conviction rate was substantially 

lower in our study findings than in Spohn and Tellis. 

Summary and Conclusions 

The different outcomes in the attrition of cases of sexual assault at key decision points 

(displayed in Tables II. 3 & II. 5), reveal some substantial and statistically significant differences 

in the outcomes between the sites and between studies. Based on this research, we can conclude 

that while the Los Angeles data are necessarily limited in generalizability they are, overall, 

indeed, representative of important dimensions of serious and concerning levels of case attrition 

that have continued for the past 40 years. These continued high rates of attrition should demand 

our attention. This study demonstrated that these findings can be produced across jurisdictions 

but also further corroborates the proviso that a focus on one or two jurisdictions may miss some 

of the nuances of processing of sexual assault cases and the differing dynamics of sexual assault 

case attrition across the U.S. 

Most critically we find that regardless of jurisdiction and the nuances of exactly where the 

case attrition occurs, the vast majority of reports of sexual assault did not end in a prosecution or 

a conviction. Indeed, a small proportion resulted in arrest thus raising questions about the extent 

to which justice is served. No matter the jurisdiction these outcomes may mean the same thing to 

victims, the accused and the community —that sexual violence seldom results in an arrest. 

It is clear that sexual assault case attrition continues to be a documentable problem that we 

must continue to unpack with case processing research. While we focused on the replication 

aspects of our study in this section of our report, we extend our analysis in later sections to 

examine in detail the influence of case characteristics and some explanations why cases fall out 

of the system. Future research needs to explore the underlying causes of both the similarities and 

differences among the agencies included in this research and LAPD and LASD. 

10 Some of the defendants were sentenced to be incarcerated followed by a period of probation so these numbers will 

not equal 100 percent. 

Page 20 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

As we report in more depth in the sections that follow, our findings overall do little to allay 

the concerns that arose from the Spohn and Tellis study that cases cleared by exceptional means 

account for more than half of all case clearances for the LASD and for a third of all case 

clearances for the LAPD. In each agency that Spohn and Tellis studied and in our medium and 

large jurisdictions, the high rates of case clearance thus, are weakened by the finding that onethird of cases, arguably with probable cause, do not result in arrest and are, instead, cleared by 

exceptional means. In addition, even when cases resulted in an arrest of a suspect in many 

jurisdictions the district attorney declined to file charges. When we merge all six sites, the 

outcome findings are most similar to those complaints that originated from the LAPD not the 

LASD. 

We did find variation in conviction rates when we compare the Spohn and Tellis findings to 

our findings. There are several possible explanations as to why we observed such differences in 

conviction rates. It is likely that there are different policies and practices in place for screening 

cases after an arrest is made with varying levels of resources devoted to these cases, a troubling 

prospect which may have greater impact when challenging cases result in an arrest. Such cases 

are likely to require more investigation and support. In addition, we are aware that there are 

political factors (unmeasured in this study) that drive prosecutorial decision-making. Prosecutors 

are elected and often accountable for their conviction rates. In politically tense or charged 

communities, it may be that prosecutors are pressured to focus only on winnable cases with an 

eye on re-election. Regardless of the dynamics that are influencing case processing, it is clear 

that sexual assault case attrition continues to be a documentable problem that we must continue 

to unpack with empirical research on case processing. 

Page 21 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION III 

CASE OUTCOMES AND CASE CHARACTERISTICS 

FOR RAPE AND ATTEMPTED RAPE CASES 

This section includes a summary of incident characteristics and outcomes for 2887 cases of 

forcible rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object reported in all six of the police 

jurisdictions. The incidents from the large and medium jurisdictions covering the years 2008-

2010 and from the small jurisdiction covering the years 2006-2012. The information comes from 

incident details collected from police reports by the research team from each jurisdiction. 

Consistent with Spohn and Tellis, tables in this section will provide descriptive statistics on case 

outcomes as well as characteristics of victims, suspects, and cases. The replication case 

descriptive statistics are compared to the estimates from the Spohn and Tellis analysis of samples 

from LAPD (N=273) and LASD (N=410). 

Case Outcomes 

Descriptive statistics for case outcomes in the replication study compared to those reported 

by Spohn and Tellis are presented in Table III.1. The replication results show that 18.9 % of the 

reported incidents ended in arrest. The Spohn and Tellis sample shows variation with LAPD 

reporting 11.7% and LASD reporting 31.7% of cases ending in arrest. The replication results fall 

within this range but closer to LAPD, both overall and by jurisdiction type (small 19.9%, 

medium 16.3% and large 19.3%). 

In the Spohn and Tellis study, 43% of the cases in LAPD and 9% in LASD were classified 

as investigation continuing. Forty-four percent of the replication cases were classified as open or 

investigation continuing and it ranged across jurisdictions. Small jurisdictions were more likely 

to leave cases open (62.4%) than medium (33.6%) or large (41.9%) jurisdictions. The replication 

results on this measure were consistent with LAPD but not LASD. LASD is using the 

exceptional means clearance (EM) classification to close cases at much higher levels (57.3 %) 

than LAPD (33.6%) and both of these are higher than the use of EM in the replication study 

(29.8%). Across replication sites, large (31.3%) and medium sites (38.4%) used EM to close a 

case at about twice as often as small sites (15.5%). 

A key finding in the Spohn and Tellis study was that a sizeable number of incidents (12.8% 

in LAPD and 9 % in LASD) were being classified as exceptionally cleared after an arrest was 

made. Based on the guidelines in the UCR handbook, EM should only be used when certain 

circumstances prevent police from making an arrest. According to these guidelines, the use of 

EM after and arrest was made is a misuse of the classification in LAPD and LASD as reported in 

Spohn and Tellis. The implication is that arrests may be underreported. If these “EM after arrest” 

cases were in fact counted as arrests, the arrest percentages in Spohn and Tellis sample would 

increase to 24.5% in LAPD and 40.7% in LASD. The replication results show that overall 3.3% 

of the incidents were cleared by exceptional means after an arrest had been made. This number is 

smaller than both LAPD (4.5%) and LASD estimates (8.0%). Combining the number arrests 

after an exceptional clearance with those cleared by arrest increases the percent arrested in the 

study population to 22.4 %. 

Unfounded case outcomes accounted for 7.3% of the cases in the replication study. This 

measure more closely aligns with the LAPD estimate of 10.9% than with LASD at 1.7%. Small 

Page 22 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

jurisdictions were less likely to report an incident as unfounded (2.2%) compared to medium 

(11.7%) and large (7.5%) jurisdictions. Incidents in LAPD were almost three times as likely to 

be classified as investigation continuing compared to LASD (63.4 % vs. 21.8%). The replication 

data fell in between this range with about 44% cases classified as open or investigation 

continuing. Small sites were more likely to leave cases open (53.4%) compared to medium 

(33.6%) and large (41.9%) sites. 

Spohn and Tellis present descriptive statistics for case outcomes separately for cases 

involving strangers and non-strangers. For stranger cases, LAPD made arrests in 8% of the cases 

and LASD in 21.8 % of the cases. The replication results fall in between at 10.8 %. There is little 

variation across the small, medium, and large replication sites. Stranger cases were considerably 

more likely to be closed by exceptional means in LASD (55.2%) than LAPD (15.2%). The 

replication results were more consistent with LAPD where 13.9% of cases were cleared 

exceptionally. Medium sites in the replication were more than twice as likely (25.9%) to close a 

stranger case using EM than large sites (10.7%). 

LAPD and LASD were using exceptional clearance to close a case after an arrest was made 

in 4.5% and 8% of stranger cases respectively. The replication results show this outcome to be 

less frequent at 1.7 % and most of the cases came from the larger sites (2.1%) compared to less 

than 1% from small and medium sites. Unfounded classification was reported in 11.1% of 

stranger cases in the replication which is more consistent with LAPD (13.4%) than LASD 

(1.1%). Small sites in the replication were less likely (2.5%) to unfounded cases than medium 

(14.7%) or larger sites (12.0%). 

Spohn and Tellis reported that the percent of cases that were cleared by exceptional means 

after an arrest had been made was more common in LA non-stranger cases (18.6 % for LAPD 

and 12.2% for LASD) than stranger cases (4.5% and 8%, respectively). In the replication study, 

the percentages were smaller but the pattern was similar, 3.6 % of non-stranger cases (including 

both intimate partners and other non-strangers) were exceptionally cleared compared to 1.5% of 

stranger cases. 

Spohn and Tellis grouped intimate partners together with non-strangers for this summary. 

For the replication, intimate partner cases are separated out from other non-stranger cases and 

those results are presented in Table III.1. The decision to present these groups separately in this 

report was based on research that suggests that intimate partner sexual assault may have unique 

characteristics. In the replication study, cases involving intimate partners were close to 10% 

more likely to end in arrest than non-stranger cases and slightly more to be exceptionally cleared 

(37.6% vs. 35 %, respectively). 

It could be that the use of EM after an arrest reflects practices associated with arrest 

practices regarding intimate partner violence. At the time of the Spohn and Tellis study, the state 

of California had a preferred arrest policy. If police are expected to make an arrest at the scene, 

then it is possible that the use of EM may happen after the arrest in these cases, especially when 

the victim did not want the arrest made. After arrest, exceptional clearance percentages for the 

total replication sample were small (3.3%) and when separated by relationship type, 3.3% of 

non-strangers and 5.8 % of intimate partner cases were exceptionally cleared after an arrest. 

Large sites used this practice more often (9.2%) than other jurisdictions. One of the sites in the 

large jurisdiction category had mandatory arrest practices and the other site had a preferred arrest 

policy. The small sites had discretionary and preferred arrest practices and had less than 1% of 

the cases cleared exceptionally after making an arrest. While a small difference, it is consistent 

Page 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

with what one might expect under mandatory/preferred arrest conditions in intimate partner 

violence. 11 

The replication data also provided an opportunity to examine the type of exceptional 

clearance categories used to close cases. The UCR provides several categories for the type of 

exceptional clearance and for our purposes we are interested in two categories: victim refuses to 

cooperate as determined by police and prosecutorial decline. For all EM cases, 33% were due to 

victim refuses to cooperate and 60.2% were rejected by the prosecution. 

The use of exceptional clearance categories varied by type of relationship. For stranger 

cases, the percentages of EM cases due to each category were similar with 45 % categorized as 

victim refuses to cooperate and 43.1% of cases categorized as prosecutorial decline. Few 

stranger EM cases were rejected by prosecution in small (0%) and medium sites (10%) compared 

to large sites (76.7%). In contrast, most of the EM cases in small (62.5%) and medium (81.1%) 

were categorized as victim refuses to cooperate. 

For EM cases involving non-strangers, 27% were categorized as victim refuses to cooperate 

and 66.2% were categorized as prosecution declined. Again, large jurisdictions were more likely 

to report prosecutorial decline (83.6%) than medium (35.9%) or small (15.4%) jurisdictions. For 

intimate partners, the pattern was similar where larger jurisdictions were more likely to use 

prosecutorial decline as the EM reason (60.4%) than either medium (48.4 %) or small (16.7%) 

jurisdictions. 

In sum, the replication results show that with a few exceptions case outcomes were generally 

more consistent with LAPD than LASD. The replication results show greater use of arrest than 

LAPD but less than LASD and somewhat less use of EM to close cases overall. The replication 

findings showed less use of EM after an arrest was made overall, but it was used somewhat more 

often in cases involving intimate partners. Similar to Spohn and Tellis, the use of the unfounded 

classification was not used in a large number of cases. There was some variation across 

replication jurisdictions. Smaller jurisdictions were more likely to leave cases open. Larger 

jurisdictions were considerably more likely than small or medium jurisdictions to use 

prosecutorial decline as the exceptional clearance reason regardless of relationship type. 

Victim, Suspect, and Case Characteristics 

Table III.2 reports descriptive statistics for victim characteristics. The typical victim in the 

replication study is a Caucasian female (59.3%) in her mid-twenties. This contrasts with the 

Spohn and Tellis study where the majority of victims were Latina (46.7% LAPD and 48.2% 

LASD). About 1 in 5 victims in the replication were African American compared to about 1 in 4 

in Spohn and Tellis sites. 

Similar to Spohn and Tellis, the replication data include a considerable number of victims 

that were reported to have been drinking (38%) or drunk (17%) at the time of the incident. 

Reported drug use was low (8.9%), and comparable to that reported in Spohn and Tellis (7.4% 

11 Another explanation may involve cases where an arrest was made, but on a warrant that had been previously 

issued. While the arrest for the warrant may not be specifically related to this incident, it is possible that the incident 

may have been cleared by arrest due to the warrant, but the sexual assault incident subsequently exceptionally 

cleared. While this type of clearance is problematic for the way in which sexual assault clearances may be counted, 

it represents some of the complexities that may emerge when closing cases. In the replication, there were about 23 

cases where there was an arrest based on a pre-existing warrant. 

Page 24 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

LAPD and 6.6% LASD). Like Spohn and Tellis, most victims were not engaging in any other 

type of risky behavior at the time of the incident and the number of victims with mental health 

issues documented in the file was small. More victims in the replication data were reported to 

have criminal records (20%) versus 12.4% in LAPD and 3.2% in LASD. Many victims in both 

studies reported injury (40.1% in the replication, 43.6% in LAPD, and 47.1% in LASD). Fortysix percent of the victims in the replication study reported verbal and physical resistance. That 

number was more consistent to LAPD (45.3 %) than LASD (53.9%). 

Fewer victims in the replication study identified the suspect by full name and address 

(22.3%) than in the Spohn and Tellis study (39.8% in LAPD and 59.8% in LASD). They were 

also somewhat less likely to be cooperative during the police investigation (52.4% in replication, 

56.3% in LAPD, and 72.5% in LASD). Very few victims in both studies recanted the allegation 

(5.6% in replication, 9.4% in LAPD, and 5.1% in LASD). Finally, only about 10% of victims in 

both studies did not want the suspect arrested. 

Overall, the characteristics show some similarities and differences across the studies. The 

largest differences between the two studies were observed for race of the victim, criminal record, 

and drinking at the time of the incident. Other characteristics showed similarities between the 

replication and one of the study sites. The replication reported similar numbers between the 

replication and LAPD on characteristics such as walking alone at night, sex work and verbal and 

physical resistance, and between the replication and LASD on the factor drunk at the time of the 

incident. 

In the replication study, sites were classified by size into small, medium and large 

categories. The percentages are also reported in Table III.2. Within site comparisons for the 

replication show that victims in the small sites were more likely to be Caucasian (73.1%) than 

victims in the medium or large sites (55.5% and 57.5%, respectively). Medium and large sites 

reported considerably more African American victims (24.5% and 24.1%, respectively) than 

small sites (10.2%) as well as more Hispanic victims (18.8% and 16.7% vs. 11.2%.). Large sites 

were considerably more likely to report that victims had a criminal record (26.8%) than medium 

(14.7%) or small sites (3%). Drinking at the time of the incident was also more likely to be 

reported in large sites (41.6%) compared to medium and small sites (33.1% and 31.3%, 

respectively). Victims were more likely to be described as having mental health issues in larger 

sites (22.2%) compared to medium (16.6%) and small sites (11.4%). 

Medium (43.8%) and large ((44.2%) sites were much more likely to report victim injury 

than small (22.3%) sites. Large sites were less likely (47.3%) than small (64.5%) or medium 

(61.7%) sites to report that the victims were cooperative during the investigation. Victims in 

medium sites were also more likely to change residence after the assault (20.3%) than victims in 

large (9.6%) or small (6.6%) sites. 

Suspect characteristics are reported in Table III.3. In line with the Spohn and Tellis report, 

data are not presented on the sociodemographic characteristics of suspect because in a 

considerable number of cases in both studies no suspect was identified. Few suspects were 

reported to be gang affiliated in the replication study (5.0%) which is slightly lower than the LA 

sites (11.6% in LAPD and 9.8% in LASD). Similar to LAPD, few suspects (4.6%) were reported 

to have drugged the victim. LASD reported a larger percentage of suspects who reportedly 

drugged the victim (9.5%). More than half of the suspects physically assaulted the victim in the 

replication (65%) which was more similar to LAPD (60.1%) than LASD (49.8%). A weapon was 

used in about 9.5% of cases in the replication which is fairly consistent with LASD (11.5%) but 

Page 25 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

much lower than what was reported in LAPD (26.6%). Bodily force was much more likely to be 

reported in both LAPD (70.2%) and LASD (81.2%) than in the replication (59.4%). There was 

variation across jurisdictions in the replication with small sites reporting bodily force more often 

(68.4%) than large (60.6%) or medium sites (46.9%). More than half of the interviewed suspects 

in the replication study claimed the reported incident was consensual (54.3%) which aligned 

more closely with LAPD (51.9%) than LASD (45.7%). In the replication study, 7.7 % of the 

suspects confessed to the assault compared to somewhat higher numbers in LAPD (10.7%) and 

LASD (19%). 

Table III.4 presents the characteristics of incidents reported in the replication study 

compared to those reported in Spohn and Tellis. The most serious charge listed in the replication 

was rape (96.2%) which is lower than LA sites (85.6% in LAPD and 84.6% in LASD). About 

three quarters (73.4%) of incidents in the replication occurred during the evening hours from 

6pm to 6am compared to LAPD (61.6%) or LASD (50%). Larger jurisdictions in the replication 

study were somewhat more likely to have incidents reported from midnight to 6 am (44.1%) 

compared to medium (34.1%) and small sites (37.9%). 

In the Spohn and Tellis study, 41% of the suspects in LAPD and 21.4% of those in LASD 

were reported to be strangers to the victim. The percentage of strangers in the replication fell 

between this range (27.2%). Nonstrangers accounted for 52.2% of the incidents in the replication 

which was closer to LASD (51.5%) than LAPD (33.4%). Intimate partners were reported in a 

smaller number of incidents in the replication (20.6%) compared to 25.6% in LAPD and 27.1% 

in LASD. There was little noteworthy variation within relationship types across the small, 

medium, and large replication jurisdictions. 

At least one witness was reported in 66.4% of the incidents in the replication study which 

was considerably higher than in LAPD (40.5%) and LASD (43%). Within the replication sites, a 

greater percentage of incidents with one witness were reported in medium jurisdictions (86.3%) 

compared to small (56.6%) and large (63%). The witnesses corroborated the victim’s story in 

78.5% of the incidents in the replication which was considerably larger than those in LAPD 

(42.9%) and LASD (24.8%). There was also variation across replication sites with a smaller 

proportion of witnesses in medium jurisdictions corroborating the victim’s story (66.1%) 

compared to small (85.9%) or large (81.7%) jurisdictions. 

More than three quarters of the victims received a forensic medical exam (79.6%) in the 

replication study compared to about half of the cases in LAPD (53.5%) and LASD (49.8%). 

Physical evidence was recovered in about half of the incidents in both the Spohn and Tellis and 

replication studies. The percentage of cases with physical evidence recovered did differ across 

replication jurisdictions with smaller jurisdictions less likely to report (28.8%) this type of 

evidence compared to medium (51%) and large (56%) jurisdictions. 

The police could identify the suspect in 53.6 % of the incidents in the replication. This 

percentage was lower than that reported in the LAPD (60.3%) and LASD (84.9%). In the 

replication study, police got photos of victim injuries in 54.4% of the cases which was lower than 

LAPD (64.7%) and LASD (82.9%). Small jurisdictions in the replication study were less likely 

to get photos of victim injuries (18.5%) than medium (52.8%) or large (58.3%) jurisdictions. The 

police interviewed witnesses in 88% of the incidents in the replication study which was similar 

to that reported in LAPD (89.8%) and LASD (88.6%). Across replication jurisdictions, 

interviews of witnesses were conducted in a smaller percentage of cases in the medium (78.8%) 

compared to small (87.6%) and large (92%) jurisdictions. 

Page 26 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Summary 

Noteworthy differences between the replication study and Spohn and Tellis indicate that 

cases in the replication tended to be more serious with a charge of rape and incidents were more 

likely to occur during evening hours than Spohn and Tellis incidents. The replication study 

reported more witnesses but were less likely to have identified suspects than the LA sites. The 

police were more likely to get photos of injuries in Spohn and Tellis than in the replication. 

There was also variation across jurisdictions on some characteristics. Medium jurisdictions were 

more likely to report witnesses but less likely to report victim corroboration. Smaller 

jurisdictions were less likely to recover physical evidence or get photos of injuries. Victims from 

large jurisdictions were most likely to receive forensic exams. Larger jurisdictions in the 

replication study were also more likely to take photos of victim injuries than medium and small 

jurisdictions suggesting that resources for physical evidence gathering may be more readily 

available in larger jurisdictions. 

Victim characteristics show some similarities and differences across the studies. The largest 

differences between the two studies were observed for race of the victim, criminal record, and 

drinking at the time of the incident. Small sites were less likely to report victim injury and to 

report that victims were cooperative during the investigation. 

The replication results show that, with a few exceptions, case outcomes were generally more 

consistent with LAPD than LASD. The replication results show greater use of arrest than LAPD 

but not LASD and somewhat less use of EM to close cases overall. The replication findings 

show less use of EM after an arrest was made overall, but it was used somewhat more often in 

cases involving intimate partners. Similar to Spohn and Tellis, few cases were classified as 

unfounded in the replication. There was some variation across replication jurisdictions with 

respect to case closure and clearance. Smaller jurisdictions were more likely to leave cases open. 

Larger jurisdictions were considerably more likely than small and medium jurisdictions to use 

prosecutorial decline as the exceptional clearance reason regardless of relationship type. 

There were a few, albeit small differences in suspect characteristics across the two studies. 

Suspects in LA sites were slightly more likely to be gang affiliates. The use of weapons and 

bodily force seem to have been somewhat more prevalent in the LA sites. Suspects in LA sites 

were less likely to claim the incident was fabricated and somewhat more likely to confess. There 

was some variation within the replication sites where small sites reported more bodily force than 

medium or large sites. 

Page 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IV. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION IV 

THE DECISION TO UNFOUND THE CHARGES 

We rarely unfound them unless there’s no crime that’s committed. And if we find 

that there’s no crime that’s committed, then—um how do I say this? Unfounded 

means there’s no basis for the complaint to begin with, and that’s what we try to—

and there’s a basis in her mind, because maybe she’s a blackout drinker or he’s a

blackout drinker and she doesn’t remember or she doesn’t remember what 

happened to them during that time frame. And it doesn’t mean that something didn’t

happen and in their mind, it was a crime, but from the footage that we have, it shows 

that they were involved and they were happily involved, it was not something that 

was forced upon them. And so, in that case, it’s something where we could probably

say that it was unfounded because they were—but we don’t do that because they

have reported it and in their mind, it’s a real thing that happened to them and they

believe that it’s—that it was a crime against them. And we’ll leave it that way. 

We’ll leave it that way, we’ll leave it as an exceptionally cleared by the district 

attorney instead of unfounded. Because we want them to—I think we want the 

victims to be able to say, Well, you know, I did present this and I told them what 

happened and they were able to find some evidence and maybe I have a problem, 

maybe I have some—and maybe they won’t—it won’t happen to them again,

because they realize, maybe this isn’t something I should be doing. It’s no good for

me. - Detective 

For something to be unfounded, um a recantation, an anger recantation where, you 

know, He just walked away with this girl and—you know, and oh by the way, he 

did this to me last night. Okay, well wait a minute, now it’s—and it’s usually a

recantation, well alright, it didn’t happen. I lied. I was just pissed at him. Okay, 

well what is it? Is it something that legitimately happened or are you angry because 

he walked off with another girl after he was with you the night previous? That is 

something that I would really be skeptical on looking into. -Detective 

Spohn and Tellis (2012) noted the misuse of unfounding by LAPD and LASD. Our findings 

suggest that unfounding is not a common disposition across departments. As noted earlier in this 

report, FBI guidelines on clearing cases for Uniform Crime Reporting purposes state that a case 

can be unfounded only if it is determined through investigation to be false or baseless (UCR 

Handbook, 2004:77). Police should not unfound when the complainant refused to prosecute or 

they are unable to make an arrest. To properly close a case as unfounded, police must conduct an 

investigation and their investigation must lead them to a conclusion that a crime did not occur. 

Unfounding usually occurs when complainants recant their statements or police are unable to 

find any evidence that a crime was committed. 

Yet sometimes, a lack of evidence and even a recantation is not enough for unfounding. As 

the quotations included below express, police rarely use unfounding as a final disposition. The 

detectives we interviewed noted that unfounding was relatively rare and many spoke about the 

discomfort they felt in using this disposition because even if evidence suggested that a crime did 

Page 28 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IV. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

not occur-- the victim believed that he/she was assaulted. The quantitative analyses we 

conducted support the officer beliefs as discussed in the section that follows. 

The Use of Unfounding 

The results of our analysis of the decision to unfound the charges are presented in the table 

attached to this section (section IV). The table is designated as “Table VI.1.” to permit 

comparison to Spohn and Tellis’ report. For additional information about the methods and 

variables used to collect these data and conduct these analyses, please see the Introduction and 

Chapter 6. This table includes all sites in our sample and a total of 2,720 female victims. Because 

there were such a small number of unfounded cases in our total sample of female victims 

(N=212), we could not break these analyses out by sub-categories similar to how we have 

conducted the other analyses in this report. 

The dependent variable is a dichotomous measure of unfounding that is coded 1 if the 

departments unfounded the charges and 0 if the investigation was continuing, the case was 

cleared by exceptional means, or the case was cleared by arrest. First, the model has victim 

characteristics including age (a continuous variable). Next, we measure race/ethnicity with two 

variables. The first is a measure of whether the victim is identified as Black (a dichotomous 

variable) and whether the victim is identified as Latina (a dichotomous variable). We include two 

measures of the relationship between the victim and suspect. Both variables are dichotomous: the 

first measuring whether the victim and suspect were non-strangers and the second measuring 

whether they were intimate partners. A measure of engaging in risky behavior is also included in 

the model as well as whether there was any mention of questions about the victim’s character or 

reputation included in the police report and a measure of identified mental health issues 

(dichotomous variables). Finally, our model includes measures of whether the police record 

notes that the victim had a motive to lie or whether the victim recanted her testimony. 

The next series of variables are indicative of case seriousness. This includes measures of 

whether the victim was physically assaulted and whether or not the victim recalls being assaulted 

(dichotomous variables). We also include indicators of whether the suspect used a weapon and 

whether the victim suffered a collateral injury in addition to the assault (dichotomous variables). 

Finally, we included measures of whether the victim actively resisted the assault (according to 

the police records): physically, verbally and physically and verbally. The final series of variables 

measures strength of evidence. These include whether the victim reported within one day of the 

assault, the number of witnesses, victim willingness to cooperate, and the presence of physical 

evidence. 

Case Characteristics 

Like Spohn and Tellis, we found that victim recantation was the strongest predictor of the 

likelihood of unfounding. In the original study, the odds of unfounding were 305 times greater if 

the victim recanted. We found a strong effect but not nearly as strong Spohn and Tellis. In the 

replication, the odds of unfounding were approximately 19 times greater if the victim recanted. 

While still an important predictor, this difference suggests that perhaps police are willing to look 

past recantation and view it as victim reaction to trauma rather than as evidence of lying. Also, 

similar to Spohn and Tellis, we found that the report was more likely to be unfounded by police 

if the victim alleged that she was assaulted by a stranger than by a nonstranger or intimate 

Page 29 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IV. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

partner. This is not surprising given that victims can name known suspects but may have 

difficulty identifying strangers. 

However, there were also some differences in our findings. Spohn and Tellis found that 

unfounding was nearly 10 times more likely if the victim had a mental illness or mental health 

issues that called her credibility into question. We found that this relationship was not 

significant—meaning that there is no statistically significant relationship between mental health 

status as noted in the police records and the unfounding decision. Similarly, Spohn and Tellis 

found that the LAPD was three times more likely to unfound the charges if there was information 

in the case file that raised questions about victims’ character or reputation. We found no 

statistically significant relationship between questions about victim character or reputation and 

the decision to unfound. 

The only other variables that Spohn and Tellis found to affect the likelihood of unfounding 

were whether the victim suffered some type of collateral injury and whether there was any 

physical evidence collected during the investigation. Their data suggest that unfounding was less 

likely if the victim was injured and if there was physical evidence. In contrast, we find no 

statistically significant relationship between victim injury or physical evidence with unfounding. 

We did however, find a relationship between physical assault and the likelihood of unfounding. 

In cases where the suspect physically assaulted the victim, the police were slightly less likely to 

make the decision to unfound. This is likely the result of physical evidence that can provide 

corroboration. 

Spohn and Tellis also found that there was no direct relationship between the unfounding 

decision and whether police believe that victims have a motive to lie. We did find a direct 

relationship between these factors. Our data indicate that if the police believed that the victim 

had a motive to lie, the odds of unfounding were approximately four times greater. We also 

found additional factors that affect the likelihood of unfounding that did not emerge in Spohn 

and Tellis’ data. For example, we found that in cases where the victim was cooperative, cases 

were more likely to be unfounded. This is a finding that needs further investigation. 

Unsurprisingly, we also found that cases were less likely to be unfounded when the victim 

employed both physical and verbal resistance. 

When we looked at the reasons given in police reports for unfounding—police cite that the 

victim was lying or making a false report as the overwhelming reason. Victims who had been 

identified as having a history of false reporting were also flagged as part of this sample. A lack 

of corroboration is the second most common reason cited which is somewhat similar. Police 

unfound crimes when the victim recants, there is lack of physical corroboration, or the victim 

does not remember the event. Each of these can call into question the likelihood that a crime 

occurred. The reasons given in the police records for unfounding overall match those that were 

significant in our regression results—with the exception of relationship between the victim and 

the suspect and victim cooperation. 

We should note that some of the differences between the original Spohn and Tellis study and 

the replication are likely the result of our small sample size of unfounded cases. In the replication 

study, we found far fewer instances of unfounding than Spohn and Tellis did. This may be due to 

the practices of the LAPD and LASD or this could reflect changing police norms over time. 

Regardless of the reason, the small number of cases that were unfounded should be considered as 

context for these findings and explains why were unable to conduct further analyses. 

Page 30 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION V 

THE OVERUSE OF EXCEPTIONAL CLEARANCE 

Spohn and Tellis describe the ways in which law enforcement uses exceptional means 

classification to close sexual assault cases in LAPD and LASD. Recall that cases considered to 

be closed (and solved) for official FBI statistical reporting purposes are those that are either 

cleared by arrest or exceptional means (EM). Spohn and Tellis conduct their analyses of Los 

Angeles (LA) cases within the FBI framework for case classification. This section includes a 

review of the FBI guidelines for arrest and exceptional clearance and provides an analysis of the 

replication study consistent with Spohn and Tellis for comparison. 

According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (FBI, 2004), an offense is cleared by 

an arrest if at least one person has been arrested, is charged with committing the offense, and 

presented to the court for prosecution. Exceptional means classification is reserved for those 

cases where law enforcement has conducted an investigation and has identified a suspect, but is 

unable to clear an offense by arrest. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (FBI, 

2004, p. 80), a case may be exceptionally cleared if all of the following criteria are met: (1) the 

police have established the identity of the offender; (2) the exact location of the offender is 

known so that the subject can be taken into custody; (3) there is enough information to support 

an arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution; and (4) there is some reason 

outside law enforcement control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender. 

The Overestimation of the Clearance Rate 

The police option to officially close a case using the exceptional means classification has 

been part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (UCR) program since its inception in 1929 

(Feeney, 2000). It was originally intended for those few cases where an offender is known and 

probable cause for an arrest exists, but due to circumstances beyond the control of law 

enforcement, no arrest is made (Feeney, 2000). Despite the distinctions between cleared by arrest 

and cleared by exceptional means, for purposes of official statistical reporting, jurisdictions may

combine them in reporting clearance rates which may give the public the impression that more 

arrests are being made (Jarvis & Regoeczi, 2009). 

The overestimation of the clearance rate resulting from combining arrests and exceptional 

means cases would be small if the exceptional clearance category was seldom used, but as Spohn 

and Tellis report, significant numbers of sexual assault cases were classified as exceptionally

cleared in jurisdictions they studied. Table V.1 reports cases outcomes for all reported sexual 

assaults in the Spohn and Tellis study and replication study. In the replication study, 48.7% of 

the cases were cleared by arrest or exceptional means which was closer to that reported in LAPD 

(45.7%) than LASD (88.9%). Across replication sites, small jurisdictions were less likely to clear 

cases (35.4%) than medium (54.7%) or large (50.7%) jurisdictions. The arrest rate in the 

replication study (18.9%) was larger than LAPD (12.2%) but considerably smaller than LASD 

(34.7%). The percentage of cases ending in arrest was similar across small, medium and large 

jurisdiction sites. 

In the replication study, 29.8% of the cases in the replication study where exceptionally 

cleared compared to 33.5% in LAPD and 54.2% in LASD. Large (31.3%) and medium (38.4%) 

replication sites used exceptional clearance about twice as often as smaller sites (15.5%). For 

Page 31 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

comparison with other case status categories, unfounded classification accounted for 7.3 % of the 

cases in the replication, somewhat less than LAPD (10.9%) but more than LASD (1%). The 

replication and LAPD had similar percentages of open/investigation continuing cases (43.9% and 

43.4%, respectively) which are considerably higher than LASD (10.1%). Small sites in the 

replication were more likely (62.4%) to leave cases open/investigation continuing than medium 

(33.6%) or larger jurisdictions (41.9%). 

Case Characteristics 

Table V.2 includes case characteristics of cases cleared by exceptional means reported from 

the LAPD and LASD samples along with the replication study. We combine the cases from 

LAPD and LASD in the following comparison with the replication study data. The most 

common crime in both the replication and LA that resulted in exceptional clearance was rape. 

Reports in both studies were most likely to involve non-strangers and to indicate that the suspect 

used only bodily force to subdue the victim. Significant numbers of victims in both studies were 

likely to report verbal and physical resistance and to be injured. More than half the victims in 

each study were cooperative during the investigation and police interviewed suspects in close to 

half of the cases in each study. 

There were some differences between the two studies. Victims in the replication were likely 

to be Caucasian and in LA they were most likely to be Hispanic. In the replication study, victims 

were more likely to be drinking at the time of the incident, more likely to have been physically 

assaulted and much more likely to have received a forensic exam. Concerning the investigation, 

the replication descriptives show that police were more likely to have interviewed witnesses, 

more victims were more likely to give inconsistent statements to police, and suspects were more 

likely to state that the victim gave consent or that the incident was fabricated than in the LA 

study. Suspects in LA were more likely to be identified by full name and address by the victim 

than the replication. 

There were a few differences across the replication sites. Victims in small jurisdictions were 

more likely to be white than in medium and larger jurisdictions, less likely to report a prior 

sexual relationship with the suspect and less likely to report both verbal and physical resistance. 

Victims were less likely to identify the suspect by name and less likely to be cooperative in small 

jurisdictions than medium or larger jurisdictions. Police in larger jurisdictions were more likely 

to interview suspects, to report that victims provided inconsistent statements to the police, and to 

question victim credibility than in small and medium jurisdictions. 

In sum, the characteristics of sexual assault reports that were cleared by exceptional means 

reveal some similarities and differences across the LA and replication studies. The descriptive 

statistics for each study show that suspects were most likely to be non-strangers, victims reported 

to have physically and verbally resisted and many reported injuries. Differences across studies 

include the greater likelihood of victims drinking in the replication, experiencing a physical 

assault and receiving a medical exam compared to LA. Suspects in the replication were more 

likely to claim consent or fabrication. Victims in the LA study were more likely to identify the 

suspect by name and address. Police in larger replication jurisdictions were more likely to 

interview suspects and to question victim credibility than in small and medium jurisdictions. 

Page 32 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Evaluating Exceptional Clearance 

Consistent with the intended use of exceptional means to close cases as described in the 

UCR handbook and elucidated by (Feeney, 2000), Spohn and Tellis made the reasonable 

assumption that if the police made an arrest, it would be officially recorded as cleared by arrest, 

regardless of whether or not the prosecution intended to move forward with the case. Their 

analyses of cases cleared by exceptional means presented in table V.3 reveal that for some 

incidents, an arrest had in fact been made. The results show that in 20.8% of the exceptionally 

cleared cases in LAPD and 22.8% of the exceptionally cleared cases in LASD, an arrest was 

made. Spohn and Tellis attribute this practice in LAPD as a result of policies where cases would 

only be cleared by arrest if the suspect was arrested and charged by prosecutors. Thus, if the 

prosecutor rejected the case for prosecution after an arrest, it would be classified as an 

exceptional means clearance. This practice is inconsistent with the FBI guidelines. The 

replication data report a substantially smaller percentage of EM cases (11.9%) where an arrest 

was made suggesting that in at least some cases, FBI guidelines were not followed. 

For a case to be exceptionally cleared, the suspect must be identified and located. Table V.3 

shows that in LASD, 28.4% of the EM cases the suspect had not been identified and located. The 

number was smaller in LAPD at 3.2 percent. In the replication study, no suspect was located or 

identified in 8.1 % of the cases. Additionally, in 4% of the cases, the reason was unclear or not 

consistent with exceptional means criteria. For example, in six cases no further workable 

information was listed as the reason. One technical reason for these anomalies may be that 

detectives did not sufficiently document or update details about suspect identification in the case 

records. Nonetheless there is reason for concern that EM clearance may be applied in ways that 

are inconsistent with FBI EM criteria 1 and 2 that are outlined above. In about 1.5% of the cases 

in the replication, other reasons for exceptional clearance were noted such as the suspect was 

serving time for another offense or there was a change in jurisdiction. 

Criteria 3 necessary to clear a case by exceptional means requires that there be probable 

cause to make an arrest. Like Spohn and Tellis, establishing whether the investigating officer had 

probable cause to make an arrest was not possible in the replication study. According to criteria 

4, there must be something outside the control of law enforcement that prevents them from 

making an arrest. The FBI explain this criterion through several possible scenarios including (1) 

the death of the offender; (2) prosecution declined (for other than lack of probable cause); (3) 

extradition denied; (4) victim refused to cooperate (in the prosecution); and, (5) juvenile/no 

custody. 

According to table V.3 Spohn and Tellis reported that a significant proportion of cases in 

both LAPD (44%) and LASD (28.8%) were exceptionally cleared because the prosecutor 

declined due to insufficient evidence. A large number of cases in the replication study (51.3%) 

were exceptionally cleared because the prosecutor declined to take the case. It was not always 

specifically indicated if insufficient evidence was the reason. This pattern of exceptional 

clearance use in sexual assaults reported to the police has also been observed in a recent study of 

case attrition in sexual assault cases in US jurisdictions reporting to NIBRS (Pattavina et al, 

2015). 

Many cases are being exceptionally cleared because the victim refuses to cooperate 

according to the police. Spohn and Tellis report that 32% of the cases in LAPD and 19.9% of the 

cases in LASD conclude that victim refusal to cooperate was the reason for exceptional means 

classification. In the replication study, 31.2 % were exceptionally cleared because the victim 

Page 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

refused to cooperate in the prosecution of the suspect. Spohn and Tellis describe the use of 

exceptional means clearance to clear reports of sexual assault as a way to prematurely dispose of 

cases, especially those that may require investigative resources to overcome the consent defense. 

Equally concerning is that prosecutors are weighing in at the arrest stage and applying a 

more stringent standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) to assess whether to recommend an 

arrest, rather than the police standard of probable cause. Like LAPD, we found through our 

interviews with police and prosecutors that the sites in the replication follow a trial sufficiency 

standard in deciding whether to prosecute a case. 

Qualitative Analysis 

Our qualitative analysis reveals some of the contours of the relationship between police and 

prosecutors in the decision to exceptionally clear cases. For example, police interviews suggest 

that there are a variety of reasons why victims may drop out of the process and stop cooperating. 

Some victims decline calls from detectives and do not wish to participate in the investigation. 

Other victims participate during the investigation but change their minds when they get to the 

prosecution stage. These differences in victim participation may not be clear in official statistics 

but come across in our interviews. The diversity in victim participation is evident in the detective 

statements below: 

So if you have a named suspect and present it to the DA to say, Are you going to 

take charges against this person? And if the decision is the victim’s not 

cooperating, the victim’s not interested in pursuing, then it would be victim refused.

...I mean if—if the victim says, Nope, I’m not coming in for an interview, I’m not

going to disclose anything, I would present what I have right now to the AG’s office

and have them make a decision on whether they want to go forward with charges. 

It is clear that the prosecutor plays a crucial role in the police decision to use exceptional 

clearance. It is not uncommon for police to leave the final decision to a prosecutor when they are 

unclear about what to do and sometimes to protect the dignity of the victim. This can also be 

because they interpret a lack of cooperation or because they decide evidence in the case is 

lacking and the prosecutor cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, 

We’ll leave it that way, we’ll leave it as an exceptionally cleared by the district 

attorney instead of unfounded. Because we want them to—I think we want the 

victims to be able to say, Well, you know, I did present this and I told them what 

happened and they were able to find some evidence and maybe I have a problem, 

maybe I have some— and maybe they won’t—it won’t happen to them again,

because they realize, Maybe this isn’t something I should be doing. It’s no good for

me. 

The other alternative is that he does agree to talk to me, he says that they had sex, 

whether consensually or in exchange for drugs, and more likely than not, the district 

attorney’s office will just decline the case at that point for lack of being able to 

prove it in court. Because they’re going to have a difficult time discerning between 

what she’s going to say is consensual and has already said was consensual, and then 

Page 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

what she’s going to say was nonconsensual. And the realities of presenting that to 

a jury when she’s, you know, in the middle of a three-day crack binge ...

This is likely due to the fact that as noted and documented by Spohn and Tellis there exists a 

trial sufficiency standard utilized by prosecutors. Similar to the original study, the prosecutors at 

our sites also operated under a trial sufficiency standard-- meaning that they only pursued cases 

that they believe that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that we looked at five 

prosecutor offices rather than one as Spohn and Tellis did, the findings from this replication were 

slightly different. We found evidence to suggest that there appears to be a continuum of trial 

sufficiency use across sites. At their most involved, prosecutors reviewed every case brought by 

the police prior to arrest and made sufficiency evaluations completely on their own. On the other 

end of the spectrum, prosecutors did not intervene and physically review the cases but detectives 

still considered how they thought that prosecutors might react to a case believing that without 

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the case would not be pursued in court. The interviews with 

prosecutors and police showed us that both police and prosecutors approach these cases with a 

downstream orientation-- considering the likelihood of conviction before moving forward. 

A detective from one department where prosecutors were involved in regular decision 

making around exceptional clearance described the process as this: 

We actually had a system set up before, in place, that we actually had a district 

attorney that was assigned to us, that we would meet every Thursday. And she set 

aside every Thursday from the time she got there to the time she left, and you could 

venture into her office all day long. And so you would sit down and—you’d just

email her and go, Hey, I’m going to come by at 11 o’clock. I’ve got four cases I 

want to staff with you. And she would sit down with you that entire time until you 

went over your case file and you explained it to her, and then she’d even make a

decision, Yeah, leave it with me. Let me read a little bit more on it. Or, No, there’s 

some credibility issues. There’s some things that are here that we just can’t—we 

can’t take this forward.

It is also important to note that these relationships between police and prosecutors 

are not static, rather they are fluid and most notably change with personnel turnover. 

The election of a new prosecutor—which occurred in two of our sites—can come 

with more or less involvement in police decision making and how exceptional 

clearance dispositions are decided. Similarly, new police leadership may shift how 

a department approaches sexual assault cases. Accordingly, it may be difficult to 

examine changes in these decisions over time without controlling for staffing 

changes both at the police and prosecutor levels. 

In the sites where prosecutors were most involved in the day to day police operations, they 

were also more invested in the trial sufficiency standard. For example, one prosecutor told us: 

...when we’re looking at these cases, we’re not—from my—from our office’s point

of view, we are not looking at do we have probable cause for rape? Do we have 

probable cause for an indecent A & B? Like probable cause is, you know, just an 

initial standard. I need to be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and 

I need to be able to say to this woman or man who’s been a victim of a sexual

Page 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

assault, I think, I can do that. I have a good faith basis to go forward. If I don’t, I

really have an obligation to tell them that and we do tell them that, that we don’t 

believe that we have a viable prosecution here and it’s not that we don’t believe

you, it’s just that we can’t go the distance on this case given the state of the

evidence. And if that changes, you know, we can reassess. But you know, it’s—it’s 

entirely the office’s decision whether or not the case proceeds, but the victim’s level 

of participation and the strength of the evidence are the two main factors as to how 

we determine whether or not we’re going to go forward.

This statement reinforces the belief that cases of sexual assault only get harder to prove as 

time goes on. This means that for some prosecutors, the police are expected to be able to make 

the case for prosecutors or else it will not go forward. For example, another prosecutor told us: 

The case is almost as good as it’s ever going to get, kind of at the moment that you 

file it. So when I’m making that filing decision, kind of what’s going through my

mind is if in a hypothetical world, the case was going to a jury trial next month, 

right, do I already have all of the proof and all of the evidence that I need already 

here in my file? You know, I’m not going to bank—because you know, you don’t

want to file a case and have somebody arrested, and especially on a sex crime, if 

you don’t have all of your ducks in a row to be able to prove it, understanding that 

especially on these cases witnesses fall off over times, you know, victim’s positions

about how they feel about prosecution changes. Um, so by the time I’m filing a sex 

crimes case, I want to feel pretty confident not just that I have probable cause to 

charge the person, but that my proof is almost at that beyond a reasonable doubt 

standard by the time I’m signing off on an arrest warrant.

For our sites that fall along the middle of the continuum-- which describe most of the 

prosecutors’ offices we studied, prosecutors are involved but much of the sorting occurs before

the presentation of the case. Police already seem to anticipate the response from prosecutors 

based on prior experience with similar cases. It is unclear how this anticipation, however, affects 

the resources that they may devote to different cases. One police detective told us: 

The way we do it here is we present it and you want to see whether they’re going 

to take it or not. You know, most of the time, I think you probably know. It’s not 

100%. And I’ve got some recently that are kind of in flux, because there’s different

opinions, and so that’s a whole process in and of itself. But for the most part, I think 

you probably know in—go in knowing, probably. 

Page 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION VI 

THE PREDICTORS OF CASE OUTCOMES 

In this section, we present a quantitative analysis of case outcomes. In alignment with Spohn 

and Tellis, we focus on the decision to unfound the crime, the police decision to make an arrest, 

and the prosecutor’s decision to file charges. We provide some additional analyses that examines 

factors that explain the cleared by arrest decision versus clearance by exceptional means. The 

section begins with a discussion of the independent variables included in the models predicting 

case outcomes followed by the presentation of multivariate results from the quantitative 

analyses. 

Modeling Case Outcomes 

We collected incident, victim, suspect, and prosecution from 2887 victims involved in 2845 

incidents of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object on female victims over the age of 12 

reported to the police from 2008-2010 in large and medium jurisdictions and from 2006-2012 in 

the smaller jurisdiction.12 We collected descriptive information on more than 160 case features 

that provide information related to the incident, victim, suspect, and police and prosecutorial case 

outcomes. From the details gathered on these case features, more than 1000 variables were 

constructed and included in the database.13 

For the analysis of case outcomes, we selected independent variables consistent with those 

used in the Spohn and Tellis analysis. Spohn and Tellis chose for their study independent 

variables that were similar to those used in previous attrition studies and did not have excessive 

missingness. A reliability assessment of these key indicators included in Appendix C indicates a 

moderate to high level of reliability on most measures. Descriptive statistics for the variables are 

presented in section III. Victim characteristics include the victim’s age which ranges from 13-86. 

The victim’s race/ethnicity as identified in the police records includes categories of black, white, 

and Hispanic or other14; white is the reference category for analysis purposes. Victim-suspect 

relationship includes non-strangers, intimate partners and strangers; strangers are the reference 

category. “Risk-taking” behavior was a composite binary variable, coded as 1 to indicate yes if 

the victim walked alone at night, took a ride from a stranger, was in a bar alone, was drinking, 

was drunk, was in an area where illegal drugs were sold, was using drugs, or was passed out.15 

Close to 50% of victims were described in police records as engaging in one or more of these 

behaviors. 

A measure capturing negative descriptions of victim character/reputation was included. It is 

a composite binary variable (coded 1=yes, 0=no) if the report noted that the victim had a pattern 

of alcohol or drug abuse, worked at a disreputable job (e.g. stripper), was a prostitute, had a gang 

affiliations or had a criminal record. Close to one-third of the victims were described as having 

one or more of these traits. A binary variable to indicate if the victim had history of mental 

12 Due to the small number of cases in the small jurisdictions for 2008-2010, we expanded the time frame. 

13 Most of these variables intentionally overlap directly with those gathered in the Spohn and Tellis study (2012a). 14 Due to small numbers in other category, we combined them with Hispanic. 

15 Unlike Spohn and Tellis the measure for this study does not include as risk-taking behavior going to the suspects 

home or inviting the suspect to her home. 

Page 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

illness was also included (1=yes, 0=no)16 with about 20% of victims were described as having 

mental health issues. Whether the record indicated that the victim had a motive to lie17 (1=yes, 

0=no) was also included. Eight percent of the victims were believed by investigators to have 

motive to lie. 

Also considered in the multivariate analysis are indicators of assault seriousness. Among 

these are whether the victim was physically assaulted (other than the alleged rape itself) by the 

suspect. This was a 3 category indicator variable with yes, no, and no recall.18 Dummy variables 

were created for “yes” and “no recall” with “no” to serve as the reference category. Reported 

weapon use by the suspect during the assault (1=yes, 0=no) and if the victim suffered some type 

of collateral injury (e.g. bruises, strangulation) during the assault (1=yes, 0=no) were also 

included. The source of the collateral injury variable is based on comments by medical personnel 

who conducted the medical exam, from the police, or the victim statements. Four types of victim 

resistance are included to capture both verbal and physical resistance, verbal only, physical only, 

and no physical or verbal resistance. Dummy variables were created for each type of resistance 

with no resistance as the reference category. 

Measures of evidence strength include whether the report was made within one day of the 

incident19 (1=yes, 0=no), the number of witnesses, and whether the victim was considered to be 

cooperative during the investigation (1=yes, 0=no)20, and a composite measure that is coded as 1 

if any of the following types of evidence were collected from the victim or the scene of the 

incident: fingerprints, blood, hair, skin samples, clothing, bedding or semen. Finally, we include 

a measure to indicate the jurisdiction size. Sites were grouped into small, medium or large 

jurisdictions based on population. Dummy variables were created for small and large 

jurisdictions with medium as the reference category. 

The Decision to Arrest the Suspect 

Police jurisdictions that participate in the UCR program record the case status of each 

incident and submit the outcomes to the FBI for statistical reporting purposes. An incident may 

be left open if the investigation is continuing. Incidents may also be cleared (or solved) by arrest. 

According to the UCR handbook (2004; 79) “an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime

reporting purposes, when at least one person is (1) arrested, (2) charged with the commission of 

the offense, and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution.” Charging in this schema refers to 

the booking of suspects and reporting the arrest offense by the police after an arrest is made. 

Incidents may also be cleared by exceptional means under certain circumstances. This clearance 

classification is reserved for cases that meet all of the following criteria (UCR Handbook 2004, 

16 Mental illness was coded as yes if either the victim, police, suspect, or other witness indicated in the police record 

that the victim had mental health issues. 

17 Determination if the victim had a motive to lie was based on case notes made by investigators. Some motives 

included the victim wanting to cover up an affair, to seek revenge on a partner, to manage child custody issues, to 

avoid being prosecuted for other crimes, to cover up domestic violence, and to cry out for attention. 

18 About 15% of the cases involved a victim who did not recall the details of the assault. 

19 Spohn and Tellis define prompt report within one hour. This study defines promptness as within one day. 

20 Whether the victim was cooperative during the investigation was determined from the police report as noted by 

the investigating officer or detective. A victim may be described as uncooperative for a variety of reasons including 

not returning phone calls or refusing to meet in person or if she indicated that she did not want the suspect 

apprehended, arrested, or prosecuted. 

Page 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

p. 80): (1) the police have established the identity of the offender; (2) the exact location of the 

offender is known so that the subject can be taken into custody (3) there is enough information to 

support an arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution; and (4) There is some 

reason outside law enforcement control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the 

offender. 

Table VI.2 reports the results of a multivariate logistic regression model predicting arrest 

versus no arrest.21 Similar to Spohn and Tellis, our indicator of arrest is coded 1=yes for cases 

where the incident was cleared by arrest was made and 0=not cleared by arrest. Two models are 

presented. Model 1 includes victim and case characteristics without the control for jurisdiction 

size. In Model 2, jurisdiction size is entered as a control into the model to determine if the 

addition of jurisdictional variation accounts for some of the observed influence of victim 

characteristics and case factors on arrest. A measure of most serious charge was not included as 

there was little variation in offense charge in the replication data.22 

The replication analysis reveals some similarities and differences with Spohn and Tellis in 

factors associated with arrest. Consistent with Spohn and Tellis, significant predictors of arrest 

according to Model 2 include relationship between the victim and suspect, weapon use and 

injury, and indicators of evidence strength. Non-stranger cases were more than twice as likely 

(2.43) and intimate partners more than three times as likely to end in arrest (3.83) than cases 

involving strangers. Incidents where the suspect used a weapon were about twice as likely to end 

arrest and those with injury had significantly higher odds of arrest (1.37). As to be expected, all 

the indicators of evidence strength predicted arrest outcomes. Incidents where victims reported 

within one day were 1.72 times more likely to end in arrest and those with a cooperative victim 

were 7.21 times more likely to end in an arrest. The collection of physical evidence increased the 

odds of arrest by a factor of 1.9 and every increase in the number of witnesses increased the 

likelihood of arrest by a factor of 1.17. 

There were some noteworthy differences between the two studies. Spohn and Tellis did not 

find any effect of race on the likelihood of arrest. The replication, however, did reveal that 

incidents involving by black victims are more likely than those reported by white victims to end 

in an arrest. One indicator of case seriousness found to be statistically significant in the 

replication study but not by Spohn and Tellis includes an increase in the likelihood of arrest in 

cases where the victim used verbal and physical resistance compared to victims who did not use 

resistance. Other variables significant in the replication but not Spohn and Tellis reveal that cases 

where victims were noted to have engaged in “risk-taking” behavior, had mental health issues, 

had a motive to lie, or could not recall the details of the assault were significantly less likely to 

end in an arrest. This is an important difference between the two studies. The results of the 

replication are more in line with prior empirical research that reports the significant influence of 

“extra-legal” factors on sexual assault case attrition. 

In the Spohn and Tellis study, the police jurisdiction indicator (LAPD vs. LASD) was not 

significantly related to the likelihood of arrest. The replication study includes the addition of 

jurisdiction size indicators in model 2 and the results show that jurisdiction size is related to 

arrest outcomes. Arrest is more likely in both small and large jurisdictions compared to medium 

21 Multicollinearity concerns did not present in observed correlations among the independent variables used in the 

multivariate models. 22 We included NIBRS most serious sexual assault offenses including rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an 

object. There were few attempts in the replication data. 

Page 39 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

jurisdictions. Interestingly, the inclusion of jurisdiction size did not significantly alter the size or 

significance of any contribution of the other case factors. In sum, both the replication and Spohn 

and Tellis multivariate analyses predicting arrest show that legal or evidentiary factors are 

significant predictors of arrest and that the effects of case characteristics are independent of 

jurisdiction type. However, the replication study also found that there were extra-legal factors 

that significantly predicted arrest including victim race and those measures of factors that 

challenge the character or credibility of the victim. Tables VI.2.1 through VI.2.3 present analyses 

predicting arrest by size of jurisdiction. 

Sites in the replication study were grouped into three jurisdiction size categories: small (3 

sites); medium (1 site); and large (2 sites) and regression models were run separately for each 

size category. According to table VI.2.1, in small jurisdictions, incidents involving black victims 

are more than three times more likely to end in an arrest than those involving white victims. 

Incidents involving intimate partners were significantly more likely to end in an arrest than those 

involving strangers. Reports of both physical and verbal resistance by victims increased the odds 

of arrest by a factor of 3.30. Strength of evidence indicators reveal that cases where someone 

reported within one day and where the victim was willing to cooperate had a significant increase 

in odds of arrest as did the number of witnesses. To further test for the possibility of individual 

jurisdiction effects after taking into account victim and incident characteristics, dummy site 

indicator variables for each model were adjusted in model 2 so that each jurisdiction would be 

the reference category to compare with the other (coded as 1). The models show that there are 

significant differences in the likelihood of arrest between two of the sites. Incidents occurring in 

the small site (site V) are significantly less likely to end in an arrest than small site “U”. This 

finding indicates that for small jurisdictions, there are additional site- specific factors 

unaccounted for in this analysis that are related to arrest. 

In the medium jurisdiction, incidents involving non-strangers and intimate partners had odds 

of arrest that were 2.88 times greater than strangers. Incidents where the victim suffered injury, 

where the sexual assault was reported within one day and where there were a number of 

witnesses had significantly greater odds of arrest. A cooperative victim increased the odds of 

arrest by a factor of 11.7. In contrast, incidents where the victim had engaged in risk-taking 

behavior had significantly lower odds of arrest. 

Similar to the medium jurisdiction, the results for large jurisdictions report that non-stranger 

and intimate partner involved incidents had significantly higher odds of arrest than stranger 

cases. Incidents were the suspect used a weapon were 2.04 times more likely to end in an arrest. 

All of the strength of evidence indicators including reporting within one day, number of 

witnesses, and the presence of physical evidence significantly increased the odds of arrest. 

Incidents with a cooperative victim were 8.2 times more likely to end in arrest. Factors that 

challenge victim credibility included whether the victim had a motive to lie and reportedly had 

mental health issues significantly reduced the likelihood of arrest. The site indicator is significant 

which indicates that after controlling for the other factors, there are still site specific factors 

unaccounted for in this analysis that are related to arrest. 

In sum, consistent predictors of arrest across small, medium, and large jurisdictions include 

measures that indicate strength of evidence, case seriousness and victim cooperation. A 

cooperative victim was the strongest predictor of arrest across all jurisdictions. Cases involving 

intimate partners were also significant predictors for all jurisdictions. Non-strangers had higher 

odds of arrest compared to strangers for medium and large jurisdictions. Medium and large 

Page 40 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

jurisdiction results also show that factors related to victim credibility significantly decreased the 

likelihood of arrest although the type of credibility indicators varied. Race was a significant 

predictor only for small sites and show higher odds of arrest for incidents involving black 

victims. Within each jurisdiction size group (with the exception of the medium site) the 

significance of specific site indicators reveals that differences in the odds of arrest remained after 

controlling for other factors. This is in contrast to Spohn and Tellis who did not find a significant 

effect for site (comparing LAPD and LASD) in their multivariate analysis of arrest outcomes. 

Analysis of Arrest Outcomes Partitioned by Relationship Type 

Table V1.3 reports the logistic regression results predicting arrest by relationship type. 

Model 1 includes the results for incidents where the victim and suspect were strangers. The odds 

of arrest for victims who engaged in risk-taking behavior were at significantly lower odds of 

arrest by a factor of .53. No other victim characteristics were significant for this group. Two 

indicators of case seriousness were significant predictors of arrest. Incidents where suspect used 

a weapon more than twice as likely to end in arrest (2.16) as were those where the victim 

engaged in both verbal and physical resistance (2.33). Evidentiary factors including the number 

of witnesses and physical evidence significantly increased the odds of arrest. Victim cooperation 

was the strongest predictor increasing the odds of arrest by a factor of 9.71. Jurisdiction size was 

not significant. In Spohn and Tellis study, just a few indicators of evidence strength were 

significant including the number of witnesses and reported within one hour were significant 

predictors. Victim cooperation was not significant. 

Results for incidents involving non-stranger are reported in Model 2. Incidents involving 

black victims in the replication study were at higher odds of arrest than those involving white 

victims. Several measures that challenge victim credibility were predictive of arrest. If the victim 

was engaged in risk-taking behavior at the time of the incident, if the victim had a motive to lie, 

and if the victim had mental health issues all predict a significant lower odds of arrest. Similarly, 

if the victim doesn’t recall the assault the incident has a significantly lower odds of ending in 

arrest outcome. Incidents where victims engaged in both verbal and physical resistance had 

significantly higher odds of arrest. No victim characteristics and only one case seriousness factor 

(most serious charge) significantly predicted arrest for this group in the Spohn and Tellis study. 

In comparison, Spohn and Tellis and the replication reported significantly higher odds of arrest 

for evidentiary strength factors including reported within one hour and number of witnesses. 

Victim cooperation emerged as the strongest predictor in both studies increasing the odds of 

arrest by a factor of 20.74 in Spohn and Tellis and 8.74 in the replication. In contrast, Spohn and 

Tellis but not the replication found that physical evidence also significantly increased the odds of 

arrest. Non-stranger incidents occurring in large sites were significantly more likely to end in 

arrest than in medium sites 

Model 3 reports the results for intimate partners. No victim characteristics in Spohn and 

Tellis were significant predictors of arrest. In the replication study incidents involving older 

victims were significantly more likely to end in arrest. Victims with mental health issues show a 

significantly lower odds of arrest. Incidents where the suspect used a weapon and victim suffered 

injury were significantly more likely to end in arrest in both studies. In the replication, victims 

who were physically assaulted, reported verbal only and verbal and physical resistance were also 

more likely to end in arrest. All of the evidentiary factors significantly increased the odds of 

Page 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

arrest in the replication. Victim cooperation was a significant predictor in both studies. Incidents 

occurring in smaller sites were also more likely to end in arrest than medium sites. 

In sum, there were some difference and similarities in arrest predictors between the 

replication and Spohn and Tellis across relationship types. Where Spohn and Tellis did not find 

that victim characteristics were predictors of arrest by relationship, the replication did find some 

victim characteristics to be significant including credibility factors for all relationship types, race 

for non-strangers and age for intimate partners.23 Indicators of victim resistance were also 

predictive of arrest of all relationship types in the replication study, but not Spohn and Tellis. 

Weapon use and injury predicted arrest for intimate partner victims in both studies. Victim 

cooperation was found to be significant for all relationship types in both studies. The replication 

revealed differences by jurisdiction size for non-stranger and intimate partners. 

Exceptional Clearance 

We included an additional logistic regression analysis not included in the Spohn and Tellis 

report where we sought to determine if case characteristics predict cases that ended in arrest 

versus those that were exceptionally cleared. The logistic regression results are reported in 

V1.3.1 where arrest is coded as 1 and exceptional clearance as 0. 

In model 2, victim characteristics, indicators of case seriousness, and strength of evidence 

are included as predictors of arrest. The only victim characteristics that were significant 

predictors include “risk-taking” behavior at the time of the incident and whether the victim had 

mental health issues. Controlling for other factors, the odds of arrest decreased by a factor of .55 

for incidents where victims engaged in such behavior. Incidents involving persons with mental 

health issues also had lower odds of arrest by a factor of .46. Use of a weapon considerably 

increased the odds of arrest by a factor of 3.24 as did the victim use of verbal and physical 

resistance (1.70). All of the indicators of evidence strength are significant positive predictors of 

arrest. If the incident was reported within a day increased the odds of arrest by a factor of 1.83, 

each increase in the number of witnesses by a factor of 1.11, and the presence of physical 

evidence by a factor of 1.71. The largest increase in odds of arrest (5.72) is observed in cases 

where the victim cooperated with the investigation. 

Small and large jurisdictions show significant increases in the odds of arrest compared to 

medium jurisdictions. The effect was stronger for small sites where the odds are increased by a 

factor of 4.8. The inclusion of site size did not have much impact on the influence of case 

characteristics suggesting not only that the case characteristics are robust across jurisdiction size, 

but also that there are factors specific to the size of the jurisdiction that have independent effects 

on the odds of arrest versus exceptional clearance. These results show that even after controlling 

for strength of evidence and victim willingness to cooperate, cases reporting a challenge to 

victim credibility or legitimacy are more likely to be cleared by exceptional means. 

23 Spohn and Tellis argued that their finding that persons arrested are more likely to be known to the victim is a 

function of the ability of the victim to identify the suspect. They reported that for those incidents where a suspect 

was identified, the percentage of arrests were similar for strangers and non-strangers and only slightly higher of 

intimate partners. In the replication study, arrests were similar for non-stranger (23%) and intimate partner (26.8%) 

but much higher for strangers (42.9%). 

Page 42 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

The Decision to Prosecute the Suspect 

This section examines case attrition as it relates to charging decisions by the prosecutor. 

Similar to Spohn and Tellis, the replication study identified a significant number of cases that 

police presented to the prosecutor for a pre-arrest charge evaluation. For the majority of these 

cases, the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, but consult with the prosecutor before 

making the arrest. After reviewing the case, the prosecuting attorney may determine the evidence 

does not meet the prosecutorial standard needed to file charges, which is proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt. If the case is rejected by prosecution for insufficient evidence, the police can 

either leave the case open for further investigation or clear the case by exceptional means. 

Clearing a case by exceptional means based on prosecutorial standards when the police have 

probable cause and occasion to make an arrest is not an appropriate use of the exceptional means 

classification to clear or close a case according to the FBI. In both studies, prosecutors were 

engaging pre-arrest charge evaluations and rejecting cases that would be closed by law 

enforcement with an exceptional means classification. Also reported were instances where an 

arrest was made but the prosecutor declined to charge. Some of those cases were cleared 

exceptionally by law enforcement post arrest. These practices suggest considerable involvement 

by the prosecutor in determining which cases move forward and it is important to understand 

their role in case attrition. 

The Spohn and Tellis study reported that there were 383 cases in which the district attorney 

made a charging decision. Charges were filed in 31.6 % of the cases, 38% were rejected by the 

prosecutor before an arrest was made, and 30% were rejected following a suspect arrest. In the 

replication study, there were 999 cases in which the prosecutor made a charging decision. In 

44.6% of the cases, the prosecutor rejected the case before an arrest was made and in 19% of the 

cases the prosecutor declined to file charges after an arrest was made. Charges were filed in 

36.3% of the cases. To understand case factors that affect a prosecutor’s decision to reject cases 

for charging, Spohn and Tellis conducted a multinomial regression analysis to determine which 

case factors predicted whether the prosecutor rejected cases before or after an arrest relative to 

those where charges were filed. 

Table VI.4 presents the results of the multinomial logistic regression for the replication 

study. Model 1 includes the results predicting prosecutorial charge rejection before the suspect 

was arrested relative to cases where charges were filed. A variety of victim characteristics, case 

seriousness and strength of evidence were significant predictors of case rejection at the pre-arrest 

stage. Similar to Spohn and Tellis, cases where the victim was described as engaging in “risktaking” behavior were more likely to be rejected before an arrest. In addition, prosecutors were

more likely to reject charges before the suspect was arrested if the suspect was a non-stranger. 

Cases where the victim reportedly had mental health issues were more than two and half times 

more likely to be rejected at the pre-arrest stage and rejection was more than twice as likely to 

occur if a victim has no recall of assault details. A pre-arrest rejection was less likely to occur if 

the suspect used a weapon and if there was injury. Like Spohn and Tellis report, all of the 

evidentiary factors including prompt reporting (in one day), number of witnesses and physical 

evidence significantly decreased the likelihood of a case rejection. In both studies, cases with 

cooperative victims were significantly less likely to be rejected. Incidents occurring in small 

jurisdictions were less likely to be rejected at the pre-arrest stage. Many of the same factors that 

predict case rejection were similar in both Spohn and Tellis and the replication. Spohn and Tellis 

Page 43 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

found effects for age of the victim and verbal and physical resistance where the replication did 

not. 

Turning attention to Model 2, cases where the victims’ character was questioned were

significantly more likely to be rejected and not move forward to prosecution after the suspect 

was arrested. Spohn and Tellis found that prosecutors were more likely to reject if the victim was 

seen as having a motive to lie. Also in contrast to Spohn and Tellis’ finding of a negative effect 

for weapon use (i.e., such use was not associated with rejection), no indicators of case 

seriousness predicted case rejection in the replication. The number of witnesses decreased the 

likelihood of a post-arrest rejection in the replication study although it had no such effect in the 

Spohn and Tellis study. Both studies found that cases with a cooperative victim were 

significantly less likely to be rejected. Small and large sites were significantly more likely to 

reject cases post-arrest than medium jurisdictions. In sum, both studies found fewer factors 

affected the likelihood of rejection post-arrest. 

In both studies, fewer factors emerged as significant in post arrest compared to the pre-arrest 

models. In alignment with Spohn and Tellis, the replication findings support the existence of a 

screening process of cases that occurs at the pre-arrest stage where cases with factors that may be 

considered challenging to prosecution are rejected at the pre-arrest stage. Incidents in which the 

victim engaged in “risk-taking” behavior, had reported mental health issues, did not recall assault 

details, had delayed reporting, and were uncooperative and cases which lacked witnesses and 

evidence were screened out at this stage. Significant factors at the post arrest stage included 

questions about victim character and motive to lie, victim cooperation, weapon use and 

eyewitnesses. At the post-arrest stage, the key questions that influenced the decision to charge 

for both studies were: was the victim believable; was there corroboration or other evidence of 

seriousness; and would the victim cooperate. 

Spohn and Tellis examined the suspect response to the sexual assault for cases in which 

suspects were interviewed. They found that in cases where charges were rejected, suspects were 

less likely to have confessed (4.5% rejected prior and 10.2% post arrest) compared to cases 

where charges were filed (33.3%). The replication study observed a similar, but less extreme 

pattern where 4.5% of the cases in which files were rejected (pre and post combined) had 

confessions compared to 16.8% in cases where charges were filed. Suspects were more likely to 

have offered a consent defense in Spohn and Tellis (56.7% said consent in pre-arrest rejection 

and 53.4% in post-arrest) than in cases where charges were filed (36.8% offered a consent 

defense). The replication analysis identified a similar pattern. In cases where charges were 

rejected, 60.6% claimed the victim consented compared to 40% with a consent defense in cases 

where charges were filed. Thus, the replication data support the claim by Spohn and Tellis that 

cases rejected by the prosecutor were more likely than those where charges were filed to be socalled “he said/she said” cases where the victim alleged a sexual assault occurred and the suspect 

claimed that the victim consented. 

Case Characteristics and Convictions for Cases with Charges Lodged 

Data from court records for each jurisdiction were collected to assess the outcomes in the 

courts in which cases were brought. In this section we report the case characteristics associated 

with a conviction or a guilty plea. There were 363 adults charged by prosecutors and of these 

cases 189 resulted in a guilty verdict or plea. Data for the analysis of case characteristics 

Page 44 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

associated with charges lodged by prosecutors was available for 349 cases. This analysis of case 

characteristics associated with guilty outcomes was not reported by Spohn and Tellis. 

Table VI.5 reports the results of a multivariate logistic regression model predicting guilt 

versus cases in which there was no guilty verdict or guilty plea (this includes cases which were 

dropped after charges were lodged and also a small number of cases which resulted in a not 

guilty verdict (See Figure II.6). Our indicator of guilt is coded 1= yes for cases which resulted in 

a guilty verdict or guilty plea and 0 = no guilty outcome. Two models are presented: Model 1 

includes victim and case characteristics without the control for jurisdiction size; in Model 2, 

jurisdiction size is entered as a control into the model to determine if the addition of 

jurisdictional variation accounts for some of the observed influence of victim characteristics and 

case factors on guilty verdict. 

Our analysis in Model 1 reveals two predictors of guilt for cases in which charges were 

lodged. Cases involving non-strangers and those where there was indication of risk-taking 

behaviors by the victim were less likely to result in a verdict or plea of guilty. Notably the one 

characteristic that increased the likelihood of “guilt” was having a cooperative victim. Such cases 

(as assessed by the investigators) were more than twice as likely to result in a guilty verdict or 

plea (2.69). This is consistent with the findings from our interviews with prosecutors (reported in 

section VIII) and especially relates to their discussion of decisions to take cases forward or to 

seek a guilty plea. 

In Model 2 we include the addition of jurisdiction size indicators in the analysis of the guilt 

as a case outcome. Our results show that jurisdiction size is related to this outcome. A guilty 

verdict or guilty plea was less likely in the small and in the large jurisdictions when compared to 

the medium sized jurisdiction. When jurisdiction size was included in the model we still found 

that victim cooperation increased the likelihood of guilt more than two times and also that non 

strangers were less likely to be convicted. In Model 2 the role of victim risk-taking behaviors 

was no longer significant. 

In sum, victim cooperation is most likely to distinguish cases with charges lodged that 

resulted in a conviction from those with no conviction (charges dismissed or not guilty verdicts) 

and we continue to see the importance of the victim-offender relationship in the ultimate criminal 

justice system outcome-- where those cases involving persons known to the victim were less 

likely to result in adjudication of guilty. 

Page 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION VII 

MAKING SENSE OF INVESTIGATING SEXUAL ASSAULT: 

INTERVIEWS WITH POLICE 

The qualitative component of data collection for the present study involved interviews with 

18 sexual assault investigators across the six sites. Due to the variation in size of agencies in our 

sample, the interviews were not evenly distributed across agencies. One of our agencies had only 

two detectives who investigated sexual assault while others had an entire unit. 

In the following section, we present the results of our qualitative analysis of the detective 

interview data. First, we will include years in service as well as reasons for becoming sexual 

assault detectives and access to specialized training. Next, it is followed by a discussion of other 

issues relevant to investigating sexual assaults (e.g., building rapport with victims and evaluating 

the credibility of victims). The last section includes respondents’ perceptions of how to increase

sexual assault prosecutions as well as policy implications. It should be noted that, due to 

confidentiality concerns, sociodemographic information about the interviewees will not be 

presented. 

Profile of Detectives 

The length of tenure of detectives interviewed for this project ranged from 5 to 34 years in 

policing with 4 days to 13 years of experience investigating sexual assault cases. The clear 

majority (n= 12) of respondents elected to apply for a position in sexual assault investigation but 

for a varying reasons. Respondents reported: 

There were some opportunities with some shifting in the way the department was 

structured, and so there was some opportunities and there was interview processes 

and things like that, and this is one of the places I chose and I was selected to come 

here and it was my top pick, so I came here. 

Two years ago a position opened in domestic violence and sex crimes is attached 

to that, so I did just the, I’d say, hodge-podge of DV for a year-and-a-half as an 

investigator, investigating everything from harassment to simple assault to 

homicides. And then a spot opened up for the sexual assault. It’s a specialized

position, you get more training, so I put in for it and got it. 

My interest transitioned the SRO position and being in the juvenile division, just 

kind of something that I wanted to specialize in [sexual assault] and so I just 

transitioned and went to training. And I started doing—while I was an SRO and a 

delinquent investigator, I also—I mean they kind wean you into it, so I get—you 

get cases here and there. You don’t get a full load, you know, and then if you can 

handle them then, you know, eventually a spot opened up in the unit so I was able 

to get into the unit and I’ve been there since.

Four respondents reported that they were looking for promotion and ended up investigating 

sexual assault and two respondents were ordered to the position. For these respondents, sexual 

assault investigation was not their first choice. Examples of this include: 

Page 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

I became pregnant with my first son and of course we can’t work the streets, so they

stuck me in here and I’ve always wanted to be a detective.

I was actually picked for domestic violence, and then the sex crimes I was 

volunteered for this. So from there, because they needed some—they needed people 

down in sex crimes and nobody was volunteering. 

It was a good schedule. It was Monday through Friday, so I couldn’t pass it up.

Specialized Training 

All the investigators interviewed for this study agreed that specialized training should be 

required and is necessary for sexual assault investigation. The amount of training varied greatly 

depending on the department and time in the position. Some investigators received training only 

when they were first promoted and others receive ongoing in-service training. Investigators at 

two of the study sites received no follow up training. At another site, the investigators attended 

an annual statewide conference. At the remaining three sites, investigators could request 

permission to attend additional trainings and all reported attending at least one more additional 

training. 

The types of training also varied based on department and the configuration of the 

investigative unit. In some departments domestic violence and sexual assault are investigated 

together and investigators receive training together. A common theme across all trainings was 

learning how to collect evidence and conduct an investigation. For example: 

We have a domestic violence high risk team. So there were at least over 80 hours 

of that. We get buccals—we’re all certified buccal swabs, taking saliva. I think 

pretty much the whole department is. We try to get everybody here to go to sexual 

assault school. That’s forty hours. And I’ve had some advanced training on 

evidence gathering for sexual assaults. 

Each detective is supposed to go to a—they send you to a sexual assault training 

for a couple of days. I also went to—to come in the unit, you go for a week-long 

training and sexual assault is part of the course there. So and updates here and there 

on sexual assault. So everyone that’s in the unit has to be trained.

Technology 

Three of the respondents specifically mentioned the importance of technology training given 

the role it plays in the investigation of sexual assault cases. Investigators felt that they should 

have more access to technology training in addition to what they already receive since it is such 

an important part of their investigations. Victims and offenders meet and/or communicate on 

social media so much of the evidence is electronic. For example: 

The most useful training I’ve received recently is based on technology, specifically

to using social media tools for investigations and how to access the information and 

the social media tools to the best of our ability. Because the reality is a huge 

percentage of our cases now involve social media in one way or another. 

Page 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

I’m the only one doing it, so maybe if there was two of us, and then maybe train us 

in how to do forensics on computers. Because that’s—I mean it’s 2015, so 

everything is electronic. You know, all this stuff starts on these dating websites, 

Facebook, text messages, you name it. And you know, if got the training, we’d be 

able to do it ourselves and know what to look for. Because we have to send it off to 

a couple of other guys that do it. 

Patrol Officers 

Respondents felt that patrol officers should also receive training in effectively responding to 

sexual assault victims. This was a common theme in the interviews. Patrol officers in all of the 

departments receive little or no sexual assault training. This means as first responders, the initial 

contact with victims is not guided by sexual assault training. As a result, they may be unfamiliar 

with the range of victim responses to the assault. Accordingly, patrol officers did not have the 

training to move a case forward or could harm a case by making the victim feel uncomfortable or 

even not explaining the evidence collection process well enough. Respondents told us: 

Because I think that they’re the first person that contacts the victim. I think that 

they need to be able to talk with them and start by believing, with the whole 

campaign that they have. And a lot of them don’t, especially the older ones that 

have been on the street. I think the older officers that are getting close to retiring or 

whatever...

And it definitely matters when you’re speaking to someone about it, because they

may exhibit odd behavior that you’re like, ‘What is going on?’ But it’s just the way

their body reacts. I mean even now they use trauma-informed for us if we’re

involved in a traumatic event or a shooting or something that, you know, they wait 

a few days before they talk to you, because it takes a few sleep cycles for you to 

process what happened. So I think it’s definitely helpful, and not just forsex crimes. 

I mean any crime, if you go to a stabbing or something or a shooting and the 

person’s acting all weird, I mean it’s because their body is going through trauma. 

I’ve had plenty victims tell me, That officer was a jerk. And I’ve had to apologize, 

like, I’m sorry that happened to you. You shouldn’t have been treated like that.

It was one of the patrol officers [who told the victim that she had to get a SANE]. 

And it was one of those—the patrol officer wasn’t really thinking in the way that

she presented it, didn’t think about, Hey, maybe we should give her a choice. And 

cops do that. We get very goal-oriented. We’re thinking about what we’re trying to 

accomplish, and we kind of forget that we need to bring—bring people along with 

us when we do that. So and it just didn’t even dawn on the patrol officer that maybe

she should have presented it in a different way. Are you willing to go do this? It’s

a good idea. This is why. And said, No, you need to go—you need to go do the 

SANE exam and do that. 

Page 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

The Initial Interview 

Respondents also felt that there should be more training on the initial interview with victims 

of sexual assault. Many felt that they could benefit from more in-depth training in this area. For 

example: 

But as far as a—as far as—it [his training] didn’t—I don’t think it really

covered victim—victim interviews, definitely not forensic interviews, 

definitely not anything evidentiary. 

It was. It definitely was helpful, a lot of it was kind of reiterating 

what I’ve observed and when I watched these interviews

conducted by a forensic interviewer, but it was as far as set ground 

rules and not lead the victim anywhere, just kind of let them talk. 

I am not trained as a sexual assault interviewer. So I knew where my 

limitations stopped and it was as much as, was there a crime? Did it occur? 

And, is—do we have a suspect? And that was really my bottom line. 

Working with Sexual Assault Victims 

Overwhelmingly, the respondents noted that the investigation of sexual assault cases is 

different from other types of crimes. Engaging and working with sexual assault victims can be 

very labor intensive. As a result, the detectives become invested heavily in these cases. One 

respondent told us: 

I think it is to an extent, because a lot of the other crimes that are done, they don’t 

have the contact that we have with victims and they don’t have the investigation 

that we do—say a burglary or a theft or something like that. They don’t have as 

much—the detectives probably have—there’s a lot more of those than there are

these. And so they’re not as invested in the cases, I don’t think, and so people 

understand that. Whereas in something that’s more personal, like a sex assault, 

people would like us to be more invested. And I think that that’s—it takes a special 

person, somebody different, to be able to do that, to be able to talk to a victim. 

Establishing Rapport 

Investigators told us that establishing rapport is the most crucial step in the investigation of 

sexual assault cases. The responsibility to do this falls on the detective. Accordingly, detectives 

rely heavily on training, experience and their own compassion in order to make a connection 

with the victim. Detectives develop their own individual styles to establish rapport but many told 

us that they adopt a ‘professional response’ in order to convey the seriousness of the crime. 

Examples of this include: 

I think everybody has a different style, but I think, again, the approach is, Tell us 

what happened. We’re here to hear what happened and not make judgments about

what happened. 

I think it’s just a matter of developing the best rapport you can, and just being 

upfront about it. Everybody’s got different—I know everybody’s got their own 

individual manner of interviewing people and I’m not saying one’s better than the 

Page 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

other. Some people are very kind of super-empathetic. Some people are more facts. 

You know, I don’t treat everybody the same, but I would say honestly most of my

interviews, whether it’s victim, suspect, witness, I just kind of go with a very what 

I consider to be professional tone. And from my experience, that works out pretty 

well, because I think victims sense that—I don’t want to say like I’m not coddling

them or something like that, but that I take my job very seriously and hopefully 

they can read that and that provides—conveys some sense of belief in what I can 

do for them. And so hopefully that works most of the time. 

I just lay it out for everybody. I feel that’s the best way, is to be truthful and honest. 

Some people like that, some people don’t, but I’m just very matter-of-fact. I’ll say,

This is the deal. This is what’s going to happen. And I give them some of the 

outcomes. I tell them, There’s a million different outcomes, but these are some of 

the outcomes we’ve seen in the past based off this. And I say, This is what’s going 

on. And you know, I just lay it out for them and say, So there’s no surprises along 

the way. Because it can be a long process through the investigation, through the 

judicial process, you know, the trials and all that stuff. So I’m not really—I mean 

you want to build a rapport, but I just try to lay it out for them and let them know 

what the deal is going to be. 

Family 

The role of family can be important in working with and gaining the trust of victims of 

sexual assault. This is particularly true for underage victims whose parents act as gatekeepers. 

Gaining their support can be crucial for investigation and evidence collection. Family members 

can also be a barrier to collecting information. Detectives have to make decisions about whether 

to encourage family members to be in the room during interviews. Respondents gave us the 

following examples: 

We kind of did, because we—we had to go back to the house a couple of times and 

get a couple of her I-Phones and stuff like that, and then we had to get—what do 

you call it? Medical release signed. So we go back and talk to her and, you know, 

you try to build a rapport because she’s basically a child. You know, she’s a child 

trapped in an adult body. So you know, you try to talk to her—you’re trying to be 

there for the parents, because the parents are both good parents, they’re hardworking, blue collar people. You just felt bad for them, because god forbid that 

happened to one of your kids, you know what I mean? So that’s what you’re

thinking. You’re trying to like help them because, you know, the victim advocates 

can only do so much, you know what I mean? So you’re just trying to have support,

say, Hey, you know, we’re here for you. If we’re not here, the victim advocate is 

here for you. 

I actually visited her house in a town close by and met with her family members 

and sat down and said, This is what it is. There’s not a lot to go on, but I’m here

for, you know, (Name) any—whichever way she wants to go, I’ll do my best. I’ll dig

wherever I can dig. And she just needs your support. Because at one point, her 

mother was not supporting her. Her mother was not believing her. Her mother was 

Page 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

in denial. So I think the family did gather and kind of talk about it and they were 

great. They were awesome. 

Usually we have them in the room, but it gets to the point where they’re being 

overbearing or you can tell that the victim doesn’t want to give information, you

know, we ask them to leave. But usually—uh yeah, she was just—mom was just—

I mean I get it, it’s her daughter. 

Uncooperative Victims 

Detectives investigating sexual assaults often deal with uncooperative victims. Victims have 

a variety of reasons for being uncooperative including fear of stigma and being unsure if they 

want to pursue their complaint. Respondents noted in their interviews that one of the ways to 

address this lack of cooperation is letting victims take the lead. By taking this approach, 

detectives can assure victims that they will not be forced into doing anything more than what 

they are comfortable pursuing. Respondents specifically told us that: 

I just kept reiterating, You don’t have to talk to me if you don’t want to. If this isn’t 

the right time, that’s fine. I’ll be happy to come back. If you don’t want to do this,

you can contact me in five years. You can contact me in ten years. If you never want 

to see me again, that’s perfectly fine too. You can say whatever you want to me.

I always tell the victims, you know, like, You tell me where to go. I’m just driving 

the boat. That’s basically what it is, because it’s a victim-driven. So the victim stays 

on board, you know, basically after—if I get a report, an initial report done by a 

patrol officer on a sexual assault, I’ll wait a couple days and depending on what 

happened. Or I’ll call that day, call him that day, and say, Hey, this is the protocol 

we follow in this state. These are the steps that we’re going to take. The next step 

is to do a comprehensive interview. We talk about the details. And I go, We only 

do it once because we don’t want to keep traumatizing you. So I go, Is this 

something you’d want to do? Some say yes, some say no, some say, give me a few 

days. I called a girl this morning and she said, Give me a few days. I’ve got to think 

about it. [And I say] Alright, just let me know. 

One of the areas that respondents noted that they experienced different challenges is in 

working with underage victims. The sexual assault is only one of many problems experienced by 

these young victims. It can be especially difficult for detectives to establish rapport and connect 

with these younger victims making it take longer to get the full picture. For example: 

It’s difficult because you can only/the, the walls are so thick – these kids are so hard 

and tough. I mean she, she has essentially been raising herself because/before she 

got into the mix, she’s been the adult in the home... So for her it was survival and

preservation of her family. So it was very difficult to penetrate that and that barrier 

and get her to start talking but it’s just a long dialogue, kind of like this, casual, it’s

not like an interrogation. 

You don’t yell, it’s none of that crazy stuff you see on TV. It’s just a very long 

rapport and trust building and conversation and then you have to be confrontational 

Page 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

because in the way of challenging their denials and that, that never happened. Well, 

(Name) I know that happened because [Male] was just up here and told us 

everything – he told us what he saw you doing. And you have to give examples: I 

can tell you that, you know, I saw you eat dinner last night – you know you ate 

dinner. But you know I’m lying – these kids are so smart, they know that too. So 

you have to give them specific examples of what you know. And then once 

you/once they start to trust you and understand that you already know what’s going 

on...

Patrol and Rapport 

One commonality across most interviews was the added responsibility of gaining the trust of 

victims after the initial contact with first responders. Detectives described this as repairing 

damage from patrol contact. Patrol officers, not using a victim centered approach, may turn off 

victims to pursuing their complaint. Respondents told us: 

I think once they realize um that with me, I’m like, You know, I’m not going to treat

you like that. It’s going to—you can take my word for what it’s worth, but it’s not

going to be like that with me. And um and like I said, I have—if they tell me that 

the officer was a jerk, I always apologize and tell them they shouldn’t have been

treated like that. And I think that makes them feel a little bit better, because how 

they were treated was acknowledged and they got some sort of sympathy or an 

apology or empathy or something. 

I think a lot of times where a male officer shows up, the victim limits her 

information. I see that all the time. We’ve had victims that come in that haven’t

reported to the police yet. They’ll come in to the main desk and say, I want to file 

a sexual assault report, or, Something happened to me, but I want to speak to a 

female officer. So that happens quite frequently. 

Victim Credibility 

All respondents discussed the need to and their methods of ascertaining victim credibility. 

Investigators noted most commonly that the ability to ascertain credibility is based on experience 

working sex crimes. Over time, they become “good readers of people” with many stating that 

they can assess credibility based on the emotions expressed by the victim. For example, one 

respondent told us: 

I don’t think there were tears at that time, but you know, you always—and back to 

a credibility issue, when I have someone who’s crying in front of me and I don’t 

see tears—you know, then you—that’s kind of a red flag, a little bit of the time. 

When I have someone who tears are coming out of the eyes and you can tell—you 

can tell a real emotion there. 

One of the other major themes that came across through the interviews is that respondents 

make every effort to start by believing the victim. This means that investigators take the stories 

told by victims at face value. This can be difficult for investigators as they are thinking about the 

rest of the criminal justice process. For example, respondents told us: 

Page 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

At the beginning it’s really hard because you need to be able to—I mean you want 

to hold them all as credible victims at that point, and it’s hard because after you do

them a long time you know that the majority of the stories are going to change. But 

at the initial response, you really need to take what they’re saying as facts.

I think you always believe the story you’re hearing, but again, you always think

about the credibility of the story, because you need to be taking that into 

consideration because that’s what a defense attorney is going to take into 

consideration. And the other thing is you want all your facts in line before you 

begin—if you have—if someone’s telling you a story that doesn’t make sense at

all, credibility starts to show through in the beginning. 

Part of the challenge of starting by believing is recognizing that victims lead complicated 

lives. Detectives noted that they might expect some inconsistency in statements because they 

have repressed some of their memory of the incidents or they are ashamed to discuss other 

behaviors with police. Detectives described victims lives as ‘messy’ often involving mental 

illness as well as drug and alcohol usage. These complications are just obstacles and respondents 

noted that it is their job to ‘overcome those obstacles where we can’. For example: 

Well I think there’s a number of factors. I mean you always hear about inconsistent 

statements, but I think, you know, the more training you have, you recognize 

inconsistent statements for what they are, whether it’s fractured memory or, you

know, we were just—I was just having this discussion with (Name). You know, a 

lot of times victims will leave out pieces of the—of what happened, because it’s

either embarrassing to them or they—you know, maybe an encounter started 

consensually with, you know, some sort of risky behavior. Maybe they were 

involved in, you know, smoking crack with the suspect before it led to a sexual 

assault, and they don’t want to talk about that aspect of it. Our guys recognize that

that’s not uncommon, to see that kind of lie-by-omission, and to accept it for what 

it is. They certainly have to evaluate that from a fact-based, Okay, you know, we’re

faced with this. Where is it coming from? How do—you know, how is it explained? 

And you know, we certainly—when you look at vulnerable populations, you know, 

the more you work in this field, you recognize that, you know, prostitutes, drugusers, you know, are risky lifestyles, so they’re targeted by—you know, by 

offenders because of that. Because they’re viewed with less credibility, so.

And our previous sergeant, used to like to say, Our victims have messy lives. And 

we just have to accept that. And you can’t sit back and judge and say, Well, I would 

never do that, you know, because it’s not about what—how your life, you know, 

operates, how you run your life. And you know, just recognize that. 

This ‘messiness’ takes on an additional layer of complication when it involves a victim

engaged in criminal activity. First, it can be difficult to engage a victim with a criminal record. It 

can also be difficult for a detective to prevent this knowledge from affecting his/her perception 

of the victim. In particular, this can be difficult when victims are presently involved in criminal 

activity and have outstanding warrants. One respondent told us: 

Page 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Her credibility, yes. She actually had two active felony warrants yesterday and I 

had to arrest her, which was very—I guess uncomfortable would be the best way to 

describe it, because you don’t want to do that. I mean you try to accommodate and 

stuff, but our hands were tied. And one of those warrants involves a parole 

violation, and then the other one was for a case where she stole some property and 

pawned it and then lied about who stole the property. 

It can be difficult for investigators to not allow prior contact to affect current investigations 

or their perceptions of the victim. One investigator relayed how his extensive patrol experience 

affected his perceptions of a victim who had a lot of previous contact with the criminal justice 

system. While his intention is to not prejudge a complaint, this previous experience can make it 

challenging. He noted: 

I had had prior contacts with her, so I was familiar with her and her lifestyle of 

being a very heavy drug addict, between heroin and alcohol. So I had a prior 

experience with her. I’d been a patrolman for, you know, 16 years, so I kind of—

I’m able to disassociate my heart and my feelings where I have to go to a call and

you handle it as best you can. And I like to handle things as if everyone’s got a shot,

as far as I’m concerned. I don’t prejudge before I get there.

Exaggeration by victims is another threat to credibility. Investigators noted that victims 

might also exaggerate the details of their assault because they think that it will push police to act 

more aggressively or make themselves seem more sympathetic. The respondents perceive the 

exaggeration as a method victims used to engage the police. This exaggeration can also come in 

the form of incomplete disclosures or minimal disclosures where victims choose not to share all 

of the details of their assault. Victims may omit details that they believe will lessen their 

credibility with the police. Despite the good intentions of victims, it can be problematic for 

detectives when trying to investigate the facts of a complaint. The exaggeration is best illustrated 

by a respondent who told us: 

She initially made some pretty egregious statements as to the firearm. She said to a 

couple of officers that he fired the gun off, all of these things. You know, He had 

the gun with him during the sex assault, it was on the bed. And we have never been 

able to establish that he has ever possessed a firearm or that he possessed one at the 

time. In any of the other cases, there’s never been a firearm involved. And it’s just—

it’s pretty—pretty atypical for his behavior. And so it’s things like that. I—I have 

a feeling that she felt she wouldn’t be believed, and so she—she enhanced things 

to—in an attempt to seem more credible. 

Victims Behaving ‘Appropriately’

Much has been discussed both in the literature (c.f. Frohman 1991; Morabito et al. 2015) 

and in our interviews about ‘good’ victims and ‘bad’ victims. For the investigators we

interviewed, much of the focus was on whether victims responded “appropriately”. Some 

respondents felt that a ‘good’ victim would be one who behaved ‘appropriately’ meaning like a

victim might be expected to respond. For example, one investigator described a victim who had 

reported the crime nearly a decade after she was assaulted. Despite the lapse in reporting time, 

Page 54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

she was still described as a ‘good’ victim because she behaved in a manner consistent with the 

victimization. The respondent said: 

The—the huge part—the helpful thing for this case was after the wedding she was 

a totally different person. Totally different person, in terms of being promiscuous 

after that, had never had sex before that, had lots of boyfriends, started having sex 

with boyfriends, different boyfriends. Very religious family. 

More frequently, respondents described a ‘good’ victim as one who had the inner-strength to 

survive the criminal justice process. It appears that investigators need reassurance that a victim is 

worthy of the limited resources. At some level, detectives must choose to invest their time in one 

case or another—there are just not enough resources to treat all cases the same. This means that 

detectives develop a perceptual shorthand to determine which cases are worthy of their time and 

energy. Based on these interviews, it is apparent that the strength of the victim and the 

detective’s belief that the victim will perform well in front of the jury is one of the factors that is

used to determine this. Some examples of this include: 

You know, there’s a lot of times the term is used in sexual assault where you have

like a good victim or a bad victim. Unfortunately, it’s a term that’s used a lot, but

she was a very strong-willed/minded victim and she was a ‘good victim’ to have. 

And she—everything that she explained made sense of why and—what and why 

she did. So it was—so in terms of victims, you know, she was a good victim. 

A good victim is one that is—you have confidence that when they’re going to go 

up on a stand, they’re not going to be, you know, basically—obviously the defense 

attorney is going to attack them unfortunately, and they’re not going to go up there

and-- there’s going to stay strong to the defense attorney. They’re going to hold, 

you know, to the statements that they made. They’re going to be true and accurate.

You know, they’re going to be strong-willed/minded, they’re going to have

composure, and they’re going to be very convincing to a jury

When They Don’t Act Like Victims

Conversely, respondents discussed how difficult it is to work with victims who do not act 

like they are expected to. This issue came up around victims of statutory rape who did not view 

themselves as victims. Similarly, victims of human trafficking who were also offending when 

they were assaulted may not behave as traditional victims. They may lack interest in pursuing the 

criminal justice process. One respondent gave a good example of a victim who was thirteen but 

the detective believed that it was consensual. This is counter to criminal law—but the detective 

made his judgment based on her reaction to his questioning during her interview. He related to 

us: 

She has the smirk and it was more of I tried to say, Look, the big elephant in the 

room is you’re a juvenile and you had sex. Okay. That’s the big elephant in the 

room. Let’s put that right on the table saying, Okay, we know it happened. So let’s 

stop with the, Oh, I don’t know what happened. Or, I don’t know how it happened.

It was she invited him over and there was no—there was no qualms about it, 

because that’s what mom had said. She was going over to babysit where—in an 

area where he lived, so he could get access to her. She invited him over and, you 

Page 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

know, they were kissing and then it just happened. And so I kind of—for me I put 

the elephant out. I said, Look, we already know what happened. You know, and I 

wanted her reactions more than anything when I asked, How old did you say that 

you were? And she was like, I was thirteen. And that reaction alone told me it was 

consensual, it was not only consensual but I think she may have instigated it by 

some of the text messages that mom said that, you know, You can come over, or, I 

can’t come over there because of your mom, or, I need to go over here. I’m

babysitting. How about you come over then? And with still looking to see him, that 

led me to believe that this was something that was a mutual. 

In another case, the victim was a teenaged boy—atypical for sexual assaults reported to the 

police. The detective noted that the victim in this case was unlikely to go forward. Based on the 

interview, it appears that police do not have the resources to support non-traditional victims 

given the limited assistance that police have. He told us: 

This kid, he’s a teenage boy and it’s just, I think you know, there’s a lot of shame

involved. You don’t wanna talk about it and, you know, I think sometimes especially

you don’t want to talk about it with you know, a young woman in a room being 

recorded with people watching, so um, so yeah, that’s just kind of you know, I... don’t 

know how cooperative the victims willing to be. Without a cooperative victim there’s 

no place to go with it. 

Downstream Orientation 

Something that came up repeatedly is that detectives hold a downstream orientation. As they 

investigate assaults and assess victim credibility, they are thinking about how these cases will 

play out in front of a jury. Investigators noted that there are multiple levels of credibility—even 

if they believe a victim, it was unclear that they would be believable to a jury. They told us that 

there are a lot of cases where they believe the victim and can convince the prosecutor of the 

victim’s credibility but they still think the jury will not believe the victim. Another issue is that 

police are concerned about the defense attorney. This includes new information that the defense 

attorney may have that could affect victim credibility. Detectives are also concerned, however, 

about how they will be treated by the defense attorney on the stand. This concern for trial came 

up in almost every interview conducted with police. For example: 

The defense had done a very thorough investigation of their own, and they had 

some concerns that they came—were very forward with coming to the DA’s office

about. And they said, We’d really actually like to sit down with this victim and ask

her some questions about these particular things. And when they showed us what 

the things were, we kind of went, Yeah, I kind of want to hear the answer to those 

questions too, because when you look at it like that, it really doesn’t add up and it

could really impact moving forward in the case. So we set up a meeting—the 

defense attorney and his investigator and his co-counsel, myself, one of the DA’s

on the case, and our—their victim advocate and the victim, who agreed. I mean it 

was presented to her as, you know, This is what they want. You don’t have to agree. 

If you do, this is how we’ll structure it. You know, it will be done in a respectful 

way. You can stop participating. You know, and she did agree to participate. And 

we had—we met for about two hours. And it kind of—the outcome was that it left 

Page 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

myself and the DA on the case with some—with some pretty big question marks 

about the way things had initially been charged and information that the defense 

had brought up and kind of things we weren’t probably going to be able to 

corroborate. And so we sat down and had a—had a talk about what—based on all 

of that now, what did we actually feel like we could ethically move forward with, 

as far as charges? What can we—what do we feel like we can prove and what do 

we now, almost two years later, feel like, Well, I don’t know that we can really

prove that. So um still being—I think we took all of the sex assault completely off. 

We’ve got burglary and kidnapping and intimidation of a witness, violation of bond

conditions, violation of rest—several violations of restraining order, and there’s

some other bits and pieces thrown in there. And I think there’s about thirteen. 

The Role of Drugs and Alcohol 

Our findings indicate that the use of drugs or alcohol by either the victim, offender or both 

was involved in many of the cases. Investigators had a lot to say about the use of drugs and 

alcohol and how it impacts the investigation of sexual assault cases. Detectives also noted that it 

was unusual to see cases where the victim was drugged. Rather, it was more common to see 

victims who were too inebriated to consent. Multiple detectives noted that alcohol was a 

common element among sexual assault cases—more common than illegal drugs. For example, 

respondents reported that: 

In terms of general cases, the vast majority is alcohol-related. I mean that doesn’t 

mean that you’re eliminating any other, you know, illicit drugs being used in 

conjunction, but the vast majority—almost all of them are alcohol-related. 

It’s very typical for people to become very intoxicated and not remember what 

happened...

They were drinking booze, they met up with a fourth associate—friend, but not—

just happenstance. He had recently been shot. They asked him about his injuries. 

He decided to tell them about his injuries, he wanted to know if they wanted any 

Percocet. They handed the girl Percocet. So the girl had booze, Percocet—they took 

her to a building...

Next, the use of drugs and alcohol can affect the ability of the investigator to adequately 

investigate. Victims under the influence may wait longer to report their victimization to the 

police which can limit the amount and type of physical evidence that can be obtained and 

otherwise hamper the investigation. Respondents told us that this is a pretty typical response and 

did not express judgment about the victim’s behavior but rather lamented how it made the 

investigation more difficult. For example: 

I don’t think it will in this case. I think that happens typical—that’s typical, because

they get very intoxicated and they don’t feel like—you know, they want to go home. 

They feel like they’ve been violated, they feel like they have some issues, and they 

really want to be home in a safe place first off. So I think that’s typical. A lot of our

cases are reported within the first 24 hours, or maybe even the first 12, but a lot of 

them are not reported right away. 

Page 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Chronic drug and alcohol use can also affect the ongoing investigation. It can be difficult for 

police to maintain regular contact with a victim who is a chronic user of drugs or alcohol. It is 

not uncommon for victims who are drug abusers to miss appointments or forget to return phone 

calls. These behaviors may also affect the way that the investigator views the victim—and the 

subsequent effort put into the investigation. It can also influence the investigators perception of 

the victim’s credibility/ While, respondents told us that they did not judge the lifestyle, their 

frustration with trying to work with these victims sometimes came across in interviews. For 

example, respondents told us: 

I could tell that she was on drugs. People that are in homeless shelters and so forth—

some people, they’re in their own timeframe. Like you tell them to call, ‘You call

me tomorrow.’ And they’re not going to call you. Sometimes they’re not going to 

call you tomorrow. They’re on their—they’re in their own world. You have to keep

pressing just to—for appointments. 

I think now at this point, having so many incidents where people are untruthful, you 

always have the question in that kind of situation where they’re all partying in the 

house and drinking. And you always wonder what actually was going on. 

Another difficulty is that the victim also may not remember crucial details because she was 

under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the assault. If a victim is passed out or on a drug 

binge, she may not remember the assault enough to give pertinent information to the police that 

can help them find and arrest the perpetrator. This can affect the ability of the police to properly 

investigate the complaint and the subsequent prosecution. One example of this is: 

So I had a woman contacted the police, filed a report indicating that over the course 

of the last several days, she’d been repeatedly sexually assaulted by multiple people

at different times and locations, the specifics of which she wasn’t completely clear

on, due to the fact that she’s been essentially on an alcohol and crack binge during 

the course of that time. 

Drug and alcohol use was often co-morbid with mental illness in the cases that respondents 

discussed with us. Mental illness also affects all aspects of the police interaction with victims of 

sexual assault. Victims who have a mental illness may have difficulty separating the assault from 

previous trauma. Another issue experienced by this population is the possibility for overmedication. This can make it hard for detectives to communicate and influence memory. Finally, 

psychotropic drugs are not meant to be mixed with alcohol and illegal narcotics. The 

combination of psychotropic drugs and alcohol can have a negative impact on memory and 

affect. Respondents had quite a bit to say about how mental health affects their investigations. 

They told us: 

She was difficult to talk to. I had to go back several times. It’s not that she didn’t 

want to talk to me. She hated the way she was. She was angry. She has so many 

mental health issues, you know, she was on all different medications. So during the 

trial process, it was really, really hard. Sometimes we’d meet with her and she’d be

over-medicated. Sometimes we’d meet with her and she’d be fine. So that was a

huge challenge for us. 

Page 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Some other life issues having to do with her mental health care. And she’s also on

probation forsome crimes and she’s supposed to be checking in with case managers

and probation officers and essentially two months ago she went off the radar and 

stopped making those appointments and meeting her responsibilities in regards to 

that. Which probably is mostly related to her mental health and her drug addiction. 

But I don’t know—there’s probably some portion of her reporting that plays into

she needs to get back on track with some of that stuff.”

She was very mentally unstable unfortunately, and um had a hard time engaging in 

the prosecution of some of those cases. A lot of them got dropped. And the current 

victim also had some kind of issues and the suspect was very charismatic and 

incredibly psychopathic. 

False Reports 

The final issue that affects victim credibility is false reporting. Unlike, Spohn and Tellis 

(2010), this was not a large part of our interview. Most of our respondents indicated that they 

approached every complaint with a ‘start by believing’ attitude—meaning that they waited for 

the evidence to show that a complaint had not occurred. The respondents had quite a bit to say 

about assessing credibility and how it is unrelated to the challenges that victims face in their lives 

including engaging in ‘risky behaviors’. As long as victims are truthful, police are unlikely to 

treat any complaint as a false report. We were told: 

My mindset is just because a victim has been drinking, possibly doing drugs, 

participating in what we call ‘risky behavior,’ it doesn’t mean that they can’t be

sexually assaulted. Again, we just have to overcome those issues. And as long as 

we know about them ahead of time and we can address it 

I mean in all my time investigating sexual assaults I told every victim, If you had 

27 beers or two beers, I don’t care. Just tell me how much you had. It doesn’t matter 

one way or another to me. 

You know, because like I said, anyone on the outside looking in, any normal person 

being like, Oh prostitute, junkie, you know, heroin addict? You know, who cares? 

Or, you know, She has—that’s the life she’s living. That’s going to happen. You 

know what I mean? But you know, at the end of the day no one deserves that, so 

we just did our job. 

Police are unlikely to unfound complaints unless they are completely sure of a false report. 

Since it is nearly impossible to ascertain this—even if a victim recants, police are hesitant to 

unfound cases. It is more common for detectives to suspend an investigation—rather than 

unfound it. The respondents noted that they like to leave open the opportunity for new evidence 

or information to come to light. They also consider the possibility that victims with complicated 

lives may really believe that they were assaulted even if the evidence shows something different. 

One detective told us: 

Unfounded means there’s no basis for the complaint to begin with, and that’s what 

we try to—and there’s a basis in her mind, because maybe she’s a blackout drinker 

Page 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

or he’s a blackout drinker and he doesn’t remember or she doesn’t remember what 

happened to them during that time frame. And it doesn’t mean that something didn’t

happen and in their mind it was a crime, but from the footage that we have, it shows 

that they were involved and they were happily involved, it was not something that 

was forced upon them. And so in that case, it’s something where we could probably

say that it was unfounded because they were—but we don’t do that because they

have reported it and in their mind it’s a real thing that happened to them and they

believe that it’s—that it was a crime against them. And we’ll leave it that way. 

We’ll leave it that way, we’ll leave it as an exceptionally cleared by the district

attorney instead of unfounded. Because we want them to—I think we want the 

victims to be able to say, Well, you know, I did present this and I told them what 

happened and they were able to find some evidence and maybe I have a problem, 

maybe I have some— and maybe they won’t—it won’t happen to them again, 

because they realize, Maybe this isn’t something I should be doing. It’s no good for

me. 

Yet, there are still times when a victim does report falsely. Detectives told us that this is not 

very common but most respondents were able to tell us about one case in their career that they 

unfounded. For example: 

I know things like there’s a case open where she’s scratched up his car and beat up 

his girlfriend and made a statement to someone, I’m going to mess up his life and 

say he raped me. 

It is worth noting that even when police are certain that a victim has made a false report, 

they are loathe to press charges. While our respondents agreed that there should be some 

repercussions for accusing someone falsely of rape, the also told us that they do not go after the 

false report. 

Our conversations with investigators suggest that police have sympathy for the victim even 

when it seems like they may not be reporting a crime. For example: 

Some of it’s time, some of it—I mean I’m sure—I’m sure no victim in the world 

wants to get on the stand and get grilled by a defense attorney. You know, and cops, 

we don’t like sitting on the stand and getting grilled by defense attorneys, because

all they’re trying to do is basically—basically convince the jury that you’re a liar.

And that’s basically—a victim is going to get up there and listen to a defense 

attorney. Who wants to sit there for hours and have an attorney call you a liar in 

front of a jury and convince a jury that you’re a liar?

In summary, respondents seem to start by believing the victims complaints of sexual assault. 

Credibility, however, is determined by evidence but also the truthfulness of the victim. 

Interviews suggest that drug use and mental illness can be mitigated by full disclosure by a 

victim. Perceptions of credibility are also affected by downstream orientation. Detectives 

imagine how a victim will present to a prosecutor and eventually a jury. This perception can 

affect victim credibility and ultimately an investigation. 

Page 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Perceptions of Challenges Faced by Victims When Reporting 

We also asked respondents to tell us what they perceived to be challenges faced by victims 

of sexual assault throughout the criminal justice process. Respondents overwhelmingly stated 

that the length of the process was the most challenging and daunting aspect for victims. They 

talked about how they believed it was frustrating for victims to call in for the detective or DA for 

a case update and being told that there is nothing new. Interestingly, they noted that while this 

frustration was understandable, it did not change the reality of their high caseloads and the need 

to focus on the biggest threat to public safety at any point in time. Yet, as one detective noted, 

victims seem to be looking for confirmation that they “matter” and that their sexual assault is an 

important priority. The major issue that they noted was how the length of process negatively 

affects victims of sexual assault. For example, they told us: 

It’s an incredibly long process, and I can’t imagine how incredibly frustrating it

must be to have your detective talk to you the day after or two days after, and then 

you don’t hear from them for a month or two months or six months, you know?

That would be really difficult. And when you go through something like that, I 

think—I think people—they want to feel important. They want to feel like they 

matter. 

...the DA’s are on trials and they’re prepping and they’re indicting and they’re—

but you know, if somebody calls and you say, I have no update, which happens a 

lot, they’re like, You know what? Screw this. I call you every other week and you 

still say the same thing. 

That’s a long time to take out of your life to rehash something that, you know, in

their minds is a very terrible thing, regardless if they think they were raped or they 

weren’t. You know, and like I said, the girl that in her mind she was raped but 

because she didn’t say no, um—you know, two years, that’s a long time to be going

through it with her and she has to keep rehashing it. And there’s a lot of, you know, 

court dates and there’s, you know, motions and stuff like that to deal with.

The length of the process can be daunting because victims want to get on with their 

lives and put the assault behind them. Meeting with detectives, prosecutors and 

frequent court dates cause them to live in the moment of their victimization. 

Respondents felt that victims just wanted to be finished with the assault. They told 

us: “They want to move on with their life. I mean they just—they don’t want to 

deal with the criminal justice system, going to court.”

And a lot of people are like, Two years from now? Like a lot of people just want to 

get on with their lives, especially when there’s no guarantee. And two years down

the road, we go to trial and all that time was wasted because he got found not guilty 

and it’s just another blow to you. You know, so a lot of people are like they just 

want to move on, which I get. You know, I mean I get that with them, you know? 

Page 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Addressing the Trauma of Assault 

Respondents also noticed that another challenge is addressing the trauma that is experienced 

because of the assault. Victims have different levels of coping and need services and support to 

deal with the assault. Cooperating with the police and prosecutors can be an enormous burden for 

victims—particularly those who are young or have behavioral health challenges. Respondents 

told us: 

I mean everybody’s coping levels are different and, you know, so from the outside

a lot of people look at that and say, Well, it’s a pretty minor trauma for—you know, 

seeing an exposed penis for two seconds and never, you know, as opposed to being 

brutally raped. So I think there’s a lot of—for the investigator in sex crimes 

specifically, just having that understanding of um where those trauma triggers are 

for people, where the levels are. In my experience, unfortunately a lot of our victims 

are probably repeat victims of sexual trauma in one way or another. So there’s a lot

of kind of having to understand that background.”

That’s a huge burden especially when you’re dealing with younger, the younger

population. Just everything that, everything that goes on that, Hey, why aren’t you

in school? Well, I had to go to court. Or, you know, there’s, there’s a huge burden 

on these, on these you know, young adults. 

One of the other reasons that victims may have difficulty in addressing their own trauma is a 

lack of support from friends and family. For victims that do have that support, they seem more 

willing to engage in the criminal justice system and follow through on their complaints. For 

those that do not have that support, it can be challenging to move forward with the complaint. 

One detective noted that: 

A lot of these victims come from families that are in some kind of turmoil in some 

way? And it’s like they can’t get out of that so if you truly are a victim of these

crimes, they don’t have the support. 

Public Perceptions 

Similarly, public perceptions can also represent a challenge to a victim pursuing a sexual 

assault complaint. Respondents talked about interactions with victims who felt as though they 

were being judged by friends, family and acquaintances as well as criminal justice actors. As a 

result, victims may worry about how they will be perceived once people know that they have 

been sexually assaulted. Detectives noted that this is a well-reasoned reaction because there is a 

lot of judgment for victims of sexual assault. Specifically, respondents told us: 

I think a lot of them are embarrassed, a lot of them maybe say, Maybe it wasn’t 

rape. Maybe it was my fault because I drank too much. You know, or maybe I gave 

him the wrong impression. You know, a lot of times they blame themselves. 

So everybody—no matter what, everybody second-guesses the victim. No matter 

what. 

Stigma 

Stigma and shame can also present a challenge to victims of sexual assault. They may feel 

Page 62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

embarrassed that they allowed the assault to occur or conversely that they do not remember 

details of the assault. One respondent told us about a victim who prided herself on her selfreliance and her ability to avoid dangerous situations. She was particularly ashamed that her 

assailant was able to get the best of her—a stranger attacked her on the way home from a bar 

when she was walking home. In general, respondents told us: 

They’re afraid that we won’t believe them.

You know, setback for somebody reporting these types of things are, you know, 

just embarrassment, I think, of, they don’t want all these people knowing what 

happened or, you know, it’s personal, it’s intimate, it’s—you know, I think it’s just

difficult for any age, from—that we deal with, from six year olds to, you know, an 

eighteen-year-old. 

Treatment by Patrol Officers 

Another area that respondents noted was a crucial challenge faced by victims is the 

treatment by patrol officers when they first report. Patrol officers are not always receptive to 

hearing victim stories. Patrol officers might not understand how victims respond to trauma. Even 

basic communication can be a challenge when a victim speaks a language other than English. 

Respondents reported that for victims who speak other languages—even as common as 

Spanish—it can be difficult to find a patrol officer who they can communicate the details of the 

crime to. Respondents had a lot to say about the general attitude of patrol officers and how that 

affects victims. For example: 

I don’t think patrol officers take into consideration or realize or maybe even know 

that when a sex assault victim goes through that kind of trauma, their reaction is 

not going to be what they think it should be. And I think there’s still those common 

misconceptions amongst patrol officers. 

Not all policemen are receptive. I know that. I’ve been doing this job a long time 

and not all of them are receptive. I think that whether they’re male or they’re

female—I’ve known some females who are not receptive at all, and I know some 

males who are equally not receptive. I think finding the right person to tell their 

story to, whether it’s a doctor or whether it’s a nurse or whether it’s a practitioner 

or whoever is that first contact, they need to be receptive to the whole thing to be 

able just to support them to tell their story. I think that is an important thing. So 

being the first point of contact, I think, is very important. 

This section examined the interactions between victims of sexual assault and detectives. In 

particular, we included the difficulty of establishing rapport with and perceived challenges 

experienced by victims. Overwhelmingly, victims seem to respond to a lack of social support, 

stigma and negative treatment by patrol officers. 

The Investigation 

Investigation-related questions focused on the types of sexual assaults that detectives 

perceived to be the least and most prosecuted as well as how they go about solving a case. 

Several factors came out in interviews that influence cases most likely to be prosecuted. First the 

Page 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

presence of evidence is crucial to the investigation and moving forward. After evidence, a strong 

victim is also important as well as the support received by victims by family and friends. The 

relationship between the victim and the offender may be important—with non-stranger assaults 

more difficult to investigate and then prosecute. Immediate outcry is a crucial component to the 

investigation as well as the personnel working on the case (including detectives, advocates, and 

DAs). 

Some detectives described successful cases as those where “everything just falls into place”. 

‘Everything’ often refers to physical evidence, an eyewitness, and disclosure by the suspect. 

Based on interviews with detectives, it seems rare that all of these would ever be present in a 

sexual assault investigation. For example, one detective noted about a particular case where all of 

the pieces came together: 

I mean this was a case that everything fell into place. Not all of them are like that. 

I mean there could have very well—we couldn’t have found video. I think—I don’t

know if that would have made a huge change in the court outcome, in the verdict. 

I don’t know. It probably would have, I think.

Evidence 

The most important element to cases that are successfully prosecuted is evidence. Preferable 

evidence can come in the form of texts, emails, videos or photographs. Respondents noted that 

videotaping of assaults has become fairly common and while difficult for detectives to watch, 

could be invaluable to investigation. Similarly, a collateral injury (for example, a physical assault 

in addition to the sexual assault) and accompanying evidence can also be beneficial to 

investigation and prosecution of a case. Another helpful element is finding that a suspect is lying 

about the sequence of events—as related to the evidence. For example, one detective told us: 

Evidence surrounding it, like things that happened before, things that happened 

after. Say a victim says that he threw—he smashed her phone with a hammer, and 

he says, No, I threw it across the room and I was just angry with the phone. But if 

you show that there was a weapon used to smash something rather than just 

throwing it with your hand, sometimes that shows that there was more violence 

there than was originally stated by the suspect in the case and that the victim’s case

is bolstered by that. And you can tell the difference between a phone that’s thrown 

across the room and one that’s hit with a hammer. There’s a definite difference

between them. 

Strong Victim 

A strong victim can also be the tipping point in a case for a variety of reasons. First, if the 

detective believes the victim, he/she may be more willing to invest resources in the investigation. 

For example, one respondent told us about a case where the victim waited years to report the 

assault. The victim was so believable to the detective that despite the other deficiencies in the 

case, she was still willing to fully investigate the complaint. She told us: 

Oh my god, she’s just—if you met her, you would say, There’s no way she would

make that—‘why—you know, why would you make that up? And why would you 

tear your whole family apart for this? What are you going to get out of it? 

Page 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

More practically, a strong victim can ease the investigation—perhaps even lessening the 

resources necessary. A strong victim may have a memory of the assault and can provide essential 

details to the detective. A strong cooperative victim might also be more likely to get a medical 

exam and provide crucial evidence to the detective. Without this cooperation, it can make the 

case much more difficult to investigate. One detective told us: 

These are victim-driven cases. If we don’t have a victim then we don’t have

anything. And then, you know, having physical evidence helps, medical records 

help. Just—I don’t know, like yeah, just—it’s important that the victim stays on

board and is cooperative. 

Immediate Outcry 

Another element of a strong victim as perceived by detectives is whether he or she made an 

immediate outcry. Immediate reporting of an assault to a friend or emergency worker is key 

evidentiary element. One respondent told us: 

We also had text from—she was texting her friend who had been sexually assaulted. 

And they were talking in code and she said to her, Oh my god, I’ve just been

[xxxx]>-ed. So we had to figure out what that meant. We figured out her friend was 

raped by somebody named [xxxx]. She says in her text, I’m with three black dudes, 

smoking [weed], and it says something in the text in kind of code, but we figured it 

out and pretty much her friend said, Oh my god, they raped you. You need to tell 

somebody. 

Personnel 

Respondents reported that there are some elements to investigation and prosecution that are 

unrelated to the victim or available evidence. Most notably, the composition of the team 

investigating and prosecuting the case can affect the investigation and the success of prosecution. 

This can be explained by providing support to the victim or even as simply as attending to tasks 

in a timely manner. For example, a team that provides support to the victim or simply attend to 

tasks in a timely manner can have a positive impact on the trajectory of the case. Respondents 

noted that the actions and attitudes of criminal justice actors affect both the outcome of a case 

and the victim. One respondent told us about a case that he felt ended in a mistrial because of the 

behavior of the prosecutor. He told us: 

I mean ... I’m not the greatest detective in the universe either and we all mess up.

But some—some of us just um really hit it off and if somebody’s not on board or 

can’t be available for the victim... And some people (referring to a prosecutor) 

they’re like, <Eh, no, I haven’t read the report yet.> I’m like (sighs), Well can you 

read it so I can give somebody an answer as to what’s going on? <Swamped> I 

know. And they are swamped. 

Cases Least Likely to Be Prosecuted 

Respondents felt it was difficult to predict which cases would be successfully prosecuted. 

Many noted that some cases that they believed were ‘slam dunks’ came back with a not guilty

verdict and other cases that they thought were unlikely to end in conviction, were successfully 

prosecuted. Respondents noted that certain characteristics are predictive of cases that prosecutors 

do not accept. In particular, they told us that victim’s personal characteristics (i.e., income and 

Page 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

homelessness) were especially important. It is difficult to determine, however, if these 

characteristics made it more difficult for victims to participate in their investigation or if they 

make victims more unattractive to prosecutors. For example, a homeless victim may be difficult 

for the police to locate because they do not have a fixed address. A low-income victim may have 

to work rather than attend meetings or hearings. Conversely, a prosecutor might think that a lowincome or homeless victim would appear unsympathetic to a jury and decide not to proceed. 

There is one case characteristic, however, that trumps all individual victim characteristics. 

Cases that involve non-stranger assaults are much less likely to end in prosecution than those that 

involve strangers. These cases are more difficult to both investigate and prosecute. One detective 

told us: 

Non-stranger sex assaults are just more difficult because of the nature of them. Not 

only just from an investigative standpoint, but from—from like—really from a 

detective standpoint, like really committing to that case, do you know what I mean? 

You get a stranger sex assault and it may be a burglary sex assault and you’re like,

Okay, I can sink my teeth into this. Whereas the stranger sex assault, you know it’s 

going to be obstacles, obstacles, obstacles that you have to overcome. 

It should be noted that detectives expect that these cases will be more difficult and begin 

their investigations accordingly. They believe that they will encounter obstacles and that victims 

will drop out of the process during the investigation. 

Finally, respondents told us that the other big reason for not going forward with cases is 

incomplete disclosures. Victims—for a variety of reasons—do not always tell the police the 

whole truth. Victims may feel shame about their assault or more practically speaking may have 

been involved in illegal activity when they were assaulted. As a result, they may feel that police 

will not want to help them if they shared the entirety of the circumstances surrounding their 

victimization. These incomplete admissions can stymie an investigation and/or give a defense 

attorney enough information to create reasonable doubt. As a result, detectives are loathe to 

continue with a victim who does not tell the entire truth surrounding their assault. One detective 

told us: 

Yeah, so many different reasons I would think. I would think, um, incomplete 

disclosures or minimal disclosures, meaning we don’t have enough facts or

circumstances just to substantiate when or where to meet the burden that we have 

to meet um, or exactly what happened – that would be a huge piece. I think unable 

to substantiate or give any/find any evidence that would help bolster the minimal 

disclosure. 

It should be noted that incomplete disclosures are not enough to stop an investigation 

every time. There are cases where detectives have enough corroborating evidence to 

continue with an investigation even when victims don’t initially tell the truth. 

I’ve had a ton of cases—I mean, you know, I—I’ve had prostitutes and things go

bad and it is what it is. When they’re upfront—when they’re right up front with you 

and they go, I was prostituting myself, but this guy came in with a gun and sexually 

assaulted me, we’re good. Let’s go. I’m not telling you that we’re going to be able 

to prove it and take it to court, but you’ve put us on a good track, because you’re

not holding anything back. Like I try to explain to victims repeatedly, I understand, 

Page 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

you know, certain things are embarrassing or certain things are shameful or certain 

things, you think, put you in a bad light’ I try to explain to victims when I’m

interviewing them, If you give me the information up front so that I have it and the 

district attorney’s office has it, we can explain that stuff. Because people have a 

million reasons they do things. And that doesn’t—and is it always great? No. But 

at least we know about it and we can work with it. Because everyone’s got

motivations for everything, and I can—as long as I have the information, I can 

explain the motivation. Most of the time juries are smart enough to go, Okay. 

Solving Cases: Discretion to Arrest or “Clear Other”

According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

2004), offenses are cleared either by arrest or by exceptional means. Specifically, an offense is 

cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when at least one person is (1) arrested, 

(2) charged with the commission of the offense, and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution 

(whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice) (p. 79). Regarding exceptional 

clearances, the handbook notes that there may be occasions where law enforcement has 

investigated, exhausted all leads, and identified a suspect but is nonetheless unable to clear an 

offense by arrest. In this situation, the agency can clear the offense by exceptional means, if each 

of the following questions can be answered in the affirmative (pp. 80-81): Has the investigation 

definitely established the identity of the offender?; Is the exact location of the offender known so 

that the subject could be taken into custody now?; Is there enough information to support an 

arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution?; and, Is there some reason outside 

law enforcement control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender? 

The Arrest Decision 

Our analyses reveal that police do not always make arrests—even when they have all the 

information and evidence to do so. In some cases, the police and prosecutor make the decision to 

hold off on an arrest until they can collect enough information. An immediate arrest means that 

the clock begins ticking for arraignment and indictment. One respondent told us: 

The reasoning behind it, if you make the immediate arrest, the county attorney’s 

office only has 90 days to indict. So if you don’t make an arrest, they can indict 

when they want to indict. It lets them have more time with the case. They can 

actually speak to the victim too. They can let the victim know the pros and cons of 

the case and, you know, gauge the victim too unfortunately, you know, as far as 

‘good victim/bad victim’ type stuff. And then they can decide if they want to 

prosecute the case or not. And that’s when they would decide they’re going to do

an indictment. 

One of the departments in our study, had a work around for this type of situation called an 

‘investigative hold’. One respondent related:

We had this investigative hold processed just for those situations where we need a 

guy in custody but we need a little time to really pull everything together and 

something very solid for the district attorney to ultimately make a decision. And 

that investigative hold is something that’s in place for any felony across the board. 

It’s not just for sex assaults. It’s for aggravated assault, for robbery, for domestic 

Page 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

violence, for child abuse, for burglary. Any time somebody gets quote unquote 

arrested for a felony, it’s actually not an arrest. It’s an investigative hold. So 

that’s—that’s a procedure that has—that is in place for every type of felony, where 

they’re placed into custody kind of temporarily until we can bring everything to the

DA’s office for them to make an ultimate filing and official charging decision. So 

and that’s even also for some serious misdemeanors—some of the sex crimes, 

domestic, some of that, where essentially in those cases the DA’s are the only ones

who can make the decision on whether somebody’s officially criminally-charged. 

Another reason to delay the arrest decision is out of concern for the defendant. Numerous 

respondents told us that they were loath to arrest a suspect for sexual assault and potentially harm 

his reputation ‘needlessly’. For example:

I shouldn’t—we feel a duty to safeguard people from that needlessly. If we have 

the evidence to show, there’s absolutely no hesitation. But if it’s not going to be

prosecuted ultimately, we’re somewhat hesitant about arresting somebody just to

arrest someone, because there is—there is a burden that goes with that. And we feel 

ethically if it’s not going to be ultimately proven, we’re very careful about arresting 

somebody unless there is, you know, obviously some of these safety concerns or 

whatever. 

When an arrest is made, first probable cause must be met but that is not the only condition 

we found in cases where an arrest was made. In fact, an arrest is not made in every case where 

there is probable cause. It is also because the police believe that there is an immediate public 

safety need—meaning that there is a great risk that the perpetrator will reoffend. This can be 

because of many factors including the assault was especially violent (e.g., the assailant used a 

weapon), there is a lack of permanent address of the accused assailant (thus there is an associated 

flight risk), a history of offending, or in the case of a stranger assault. For example: 

—if the person is a danger—if you believe the victim is in imminent danger, that’s

where—and you have probable cause, that’s where you—do what you need to do. 

Generally, if we have a serious event like this—this is a very serious case—and 

we’ve been able to—I establish the identity of the suspect right away—when it’s a

generally—and this generally happens when it’s somebody who’s known to our 

victim, we try very hard to get them in custody as soon as possible. Because there’s

a huge safety risk, regard—you know, this case, yes, he broke in, he had a gun, you 

know, he did some kind of violent behaviors. That’s a huge safety risk. And we

have a duty to the public. We can’t—if we know this guy is engaging in this 

egregious behavior, it’s important for us to get them at least in custody as soon as

we legally can do so. And we have to have probable cause. 

Well I would say that due to the threat of public safety, specific to the nature of his 

crimes and the location—college campus, young women, all of these women are 

like five feet or under and under 100 pounds. I mean they’re tiny. His history—I 

think everybody felt it was a—an actual large, ongoing public safety issue. And so 

it was necessary to get him off the street right away. I’m not going to tell you that

Page 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

anything super special was done. Every—we did everything the way we normally 

do everything. 

Sometimes in our cases if it’s a case that—you know, an example, you know, a 

woman walking down the street, you know, and then she gets attacked and raped 

right there on the side of the road and the suspect runs away and he gets caught by 

a patrol officer, we make the arrest. But if it’s one of the ones where they say, I 

was assaulted, and we don’t find a suspect until three days later, we usually don’t 

make the arrest then and we’ll send over to the county attorney’s office and they

end up doing the indictment. 

Building on the determination of the threat to public safety, respondents noted that they are 

also unlikely to immediately make an arrest in cases where there is a delayed report. The delayed 

report negates the public safety risk. For example: 

It’s not fresh, so we wouldn’t go out unless something had taken place like, you 

know, found a body or something. It just wouldn’t make sense to go out and say, 

We’re arresting you for a rape you committed so-and-so years ago. 

In addition, police may make an arrest if there is an additional offense (beyond the sexual 

assault). For example, if an accused assailant is in violation of parole, he can be put into custody 

while police and prosecutors make decisions about whether or not to proceed on the sexual 

assault charge. An arrest can also result from a weapons charge or a drug-related crime. 

Similarly, officers may make an arrest for domestic violence or kidnapping—a crime that is 

related to the assault but does not include it. When cases are not cleared by arrest, they are most 

likely to be cleared by exceptional means. This is the most common clearance type for cases of 

sexual assault reported to the police. Our analyses indicate that the major reason why police clear 

cases by exceptional means is because they note that the victim refuses to cooperate. 

Exceptional Clearance 

More commonly, we found that cases were closed by exceptional means. A clearance by 

exceptional means implies that the offender is known to the police but criminal justice 

practitioners do not make an arrest. While the official reasons are discussed earlier in the chapter, 

there are informal processes as well. Respondents told us that the decision to close a case with an 

exceptional clearance is often decided by prosecutors who determine that there is not enough 

evidence to go forward and win a case. Quantitative analysis suggests that the most common 

reason given for clearance by exceptional means is ‘victim refuses to cooperate’. The interviews 

suggest that there is a spectrum of when victims drop out of the process. Some victims decline 

calls from detectives and do not wish to participate in the investigation. Other victims assist in 

and are even active throughout the investigation but change their minds when they get to the 

prosecution stage. These differences in victim participation may not be clear in official statistics 

but come across in our interviews. The diversity in victim participation is evident in the 

statements below: 

So if you have a named suspect and present it to the DA to say, Are you going to 

take charges against this person? And if the decision is the victim’s not 

cooperating, the victim’s not interested in pursuing, then it would be victim refused.

Page 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

I mean if—if the victim says, Nope, I’m not coming in for an interview, I’m not 

going to disclose anything, I would present what I have right now to the AG’s office

and have them make a decision on whether they want to go forward with charges. 

It is clear that the District Attorney plays a crucial role in the decision making around 

exceptional clearance. It is not uncommon for police to leave the final decision to a prosecutor 

when they are unclear about what to do. This can be because of lack of cooperation or because 

the evidence in the case is lacking. For example: 

We’ll leave it that way, we’ll leave it as an exceptionally cleared by the district

attorney instead of unfounded. Because we want them to—I think we want the 

victims to be able to say, Well, you know, I did present this and I told them what 

happened and they were able to find some evidence and maybe I have a problem, 

maybe I have some— and maybe they won’t—it won’t happen to them again,

because they realize, Maybe this isn’t something I should be doing. It’s no good for

me. 

Unfounding of Cases 

Both in our quantitative and qualitative analyses, we found little evidence of unfounding. 

Police departments might suspend a case or leave it as open but inactive. They are, however, 

unlikely to unfound it—unless there is overwhelming evidence that the complaint was fabricated. 

This could involve a recantation or evidence that the complainant was trying to exact revenge. 

These are extreme cases where there is no evidence that any type of crime occurred. For 

example: 

I just unfounded a case because it was a girl who reported that her ex-boyfriend was 

dating a 13-year-old and he was twenty. And I called and talked to her and she said, 

I was just jealous. He was cheating on her with me and I thought she was younger, 

but she’s actually 20 years old too. 

Even in those cases where police believe that the complaint was made up, unfounded is not a 

guaranteed clearance status. Police prefer to exceptionally clear the complaint instead. For 

example, in a case where there was video footage of the alleged victim and the accused engaged 

in consensual act, the respondent preferred to use the footage to show the victim that the case 

would be difficult to pursue. He told us: 

Not unfound it. It would be exceptionally cleared by the district attorney probably, 

and we would show them that video footage just to—you know, to try to show them 

that there really is a problem with this case. 

The reason for this is that respondents told us that they recognized the complexity of sexual 

assault cases and how it could be difficult for victims to remember details of their assaults and 

then report them to the police. This means that for a victim to report to the police, it is likely that 

some type of crime occurred at some point—even if there is not enough evidence to support the 

current complaint. The complainant may believe that they were victimized even if the evidence 

does not support this belief. For example, one respondent told us: 

Page 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

We rarely unfound them unless there’s no crime that’s committed. And if we find 

that there’s no crime that’s committed, then—um how do I say this? Unfounded 

means there’s no basis for the complaint to begin with, and that’s what we try to—

and there’s a basis in her mind, because maybe she’s a blackout drinker or he’s a

blackout drinker and he doesn’t remember or she doesn’t remember what happened 

to them during that time frame. And it doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen

and in their mind it was a crime, but from the footage that we have, it shows that 

they were involved and they were happily involved, it was not something that was 

forced upon them. And so in that case, it’s something where we could probably say

that it was unfounded because they were—but we don’t do that because they have

reported it and in their mind it’s a real thing that happened to them and they believe 

that it’s—that it was a crime against them. And we’ll leave it that way.

Or there may be evidence of victimization but not by the suspect identified by the victim. 

One respondent explained: 

I don’t typically close my cases with um, with a tag of unfounded? Which you can, 

so if I was to, without, without sending this over to the county attorney, I would 

probably close that with ‘leads exhausted’. That maybe something did happen to 

this girl to, to make these things up obviously something is going on but, it wasn’t

the suspect. I have no place else to go but it may have actually happened at some 

point. 

Cleared by Other 

While Spohn and Tellis (2012) found evidence of cleared by other, like exceptional means, 

these cases were few and far between in our sample. Many respondents could not readily tell us 

about times they unfounded a case let alone cleared by other. When they did, these cases were 

usually involving geographical disputes about where it was unclear in which jurisdiction the 

event actually occurred. This seems like a common problem in major metropolitan areas where 

there are fluid boundaries between jurisdictions. For example: 

And it’s kind of [jurisdictions]’s policy and all the other jurisdictions know that, 

that we’ll fight about it, but if it ultimately can’t be determined and it’s pretty close, 

like we’ll just take it, rather than have—run the risk of losing the—you know, 

losing a victim, losing a case, you know, this guy getting out because we’re going 

to have this pissing contest essentially over whose it is. 

Consultation with Prosecutors 

Prosecutors continue to play a large role in many of the investigation decisions made by 

police. This input occurs in small and large ways and is certainly in need of additional study. In 

some cases, police contact prosecutors about search warrants which is standard. In some states, 

prosecutors must approve warrants for suspects who have left the state. This means that even if 

the police have probable cause that a suspect has committed a sexual assault, they cannot make 

an arrest if the victim has left the state, unless he returns. Respondents told us: 

Yeah, there’s different ways we can do a search warrant—I mean sorry, we can do 

an arrest warrant for the person. We may arrest him right on scene, or you do an 

investigation and you do a search warrant (?)—you do it in a couple days if you 

Page 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

feel there’s a threat to the public safety. Sometimes if you feel there’s no threat and

the investigation needs more work, you’ll do it and then send it over to the county

attorney. Or sometimes you would just close the case because the victim doesn’t

want to cooperate and doesn’t want to go forward with the investigation. So those 

are the outcomes of the case. 

I actually stamped that with the District Attorney’s office. And they agreed with 

me that, you know, if for some reason she could remember—because it actually 

kind of ticked them off when they looked at, reviewed the case file, about all the 

grooming that took place. And they said if there was any way at all I could ever 

find anything to show that there was any kind of penetration, they were going to 

prosecute it. They didn’t care if he was on a world-wide tour or not. Fine, we’ll get 

a warrant and if he ever comes back to (State), we’ll just arrest him. But I never

could get her to ever tell me that there was. And the only thing she could tell me is, 

I’m not sure. I don’t know. And with it being that long, there was no way to test for 

any kind of, you know, DNA. 

In some instances, it seems like police were relieved to have prosecutors to make the final 

decision. It removes some of the pressure from police to make a difficult decision about a case. 

To illustrate this point, one respondent told us: 

Fortunately or unfortunately, once the case gets accepted by the DA’s office, it’s

kind of their problem. 

How to Decrease Difficulties for Victims when Reporting 

Finally, we asked detectives how to improve the quality of sexual assault investigations and 

prosecutions. Detectives had a lot to tell us but overwhelmingly expressed that there are just not 

enough resources for victims or detectives who are investigating sexual assaults. The most 

common response was to hire more detectives so that they can have smaller caseloads. This way 

every victim can get the attention that they deserve. The case processing time is just too long. 

They also told us that they wanted more prosecutors and judges so that the prosecution of cases 

did not have to take so long. Respondents told us that they believed this was the biggest barrier 

faced by victims. For example: 

That’s a long time to take out of your life to rehash something that, you know, in 

their minds is a very terrible thing, regardless if they think they were raped or they 

weren’t. You know, and like I said, the girl that in her mind she was raped but 

because she didn’t say no, um—you know, two years, that’s a long time to be going

through it with her and she has to keep rehashing it. And there’s a lot of, you know, 

court dates and there’s, you know, motions and stuff like that to deal with.

Reducing Language Barriers 

Another way that they felt we could reduce difficulties for victims include reducing 

language barriers. For example, respondents told us: 

She didn’t report right away and there were some inconsistencies during the 

meeting, but like I said, you know what, she—to me, she clarified things up. You 

know, there was a language barrier. I mean she spoke English, but it was very 

Page 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

difficult to understand at some points. And we did bring in—we actually brought 

in an officer who spoke [language 1] and he was male, and you could tell—I could 

tell at some points that he was having difficulty asking her certain, you know, very 

personal questions. You know what I mean? I mean we do have [language 1]-

speaking officers, but not that many. You know, and there’s times—even like with 

[language 2], there’s times that we don’t have a lot of [language 2] officers on the 

street. Like we were out the other day, me and a detective, and he speaks [language 

2], and they had to call him in to assist somebody at the main desk to speak 

[language 2]. 

I’ve had more cases postponed because interpreters never showed or 

miscommunication in when the date was. That happens all the time. 

By increasing the interpretation services, victims might be more willing to disclose to police. 

Available interpreters can also make the court process move more smoothly and quickly 

therefore improving the process for sexual assault victims. 

Prevention of Sexual Assaults in the Future 

Detectives also discussed how the best way to improve the process for victims of sexual 

assault was to have them not be victimized in the first place. They mentioned prevention of 

sexual assaults as a way to improve the outcomes. For example, one respondent told us: 

I mean honestly, if we wanted to actually prevent a lot of sex assaults—and I know 

the reason that this isn’t done is because people say it’s victim-blaming and things 

like that, and I understand that perspective. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But I

would, you know, urge educating young people on a couple of areas, which is don’t

drink so much. I mean unfortunately we’ve kind of taught people it’s okay—well, 

if you go out with a bunch of your friends and drink a whole bunch, as long as 

you’re with your friends you’re good, right? Because nobody’s going to get you

while you’re with your friends. Well, anecdotally I’ll tell you that’s not true, 

because what happens is the friends stick that friend in a cab to go home, because 

she can’t walk. And the cab driver sexually assaults her. You know, and the friends 

are thinking, We did the right thing. We all went out together and we put her in the 

cab so she’d get home okay. Well that’s not taking care of your friend. And again,

I’m not—that’s not victim-blaming, it’s not—you shouldn’t—you know, nobody 

should be able to violate you, regardless of the circumstances. But honestly, I mean 

if you’re like looking to overall reduce things, you’ve got a huge problem with

social media with kids—huge. It’s beyond the scope of what I think the general

public has any concept of, in terms of sex-related stuff having to do with social 

media. Like it’s insane. Um and drinking. And I mean that’s—it’s America and

drinking’s okay and people like to go out and drink a lot more than they should.

And I mean honestly, if you wanted to start reducing this stuff, I think the public 

education campaign would have to be, Don’t drink so much that you don’t know

where you are, even if you’re with friends.

Page 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Finally, respondents expressed frustration with societal perceptions of sexual assault. The 

final thoughts of many respondents centered around how pervasive misconceptions are about 

victims of sexual assault. One respondent told us: 

You know what I mean? And you’re wearing some sexy little outfit, it doesn’t mean 

you deserve to get raped, you know? But they definitely need to be, you know, 

more aware. Like I would never blame a victim at all. I’ve never blamed a victim. 

But I think some victims need to be more aware of what’s going on. But again, you 

know, if you’re raped, you’re raped. There’s no blame. So I definitely think that—

you know, especially starting—kids are having sex younger and younger these 

days, maybe even like middle school, you know, having programs like, No is no, 

and this is unacceptable. All the way through high school, through college, I think 

that would be outstanding. Because these girls need to know, you know, it’s not

your fault because you got drunk and you’re wearing something sexy. That does 

not give the right to a guy to touch you, you know? So I think that would be—if I 

had the money or if the [jurisdiction] had the money, I’d definitely put it in to 

something like that. 

Summary 

We interviewed 18 sexual assault investigators across six sites. Our interviews made it clear 

that these are challenging cases to investigate and clear by arrest. The investigators offered their 

perspective of the challenges faced both by police and by victims. From their responses, it is clear 

that they believed that with increased resources, victims could have more support throughout the 

process and detectives would be able to better investigate the complaint. The complicated 

relationship with prosecutors also emerged throughout the interviews as well as the clear presence 

of a downstream orientation. 

Page 74 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION VIII 

MAKING SENSE OF PROSECUTION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT: INTERVIEWS 

WITH ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

In this section, we present the results of our prosecutor interviews and the qualitative 

analysis of the transcripts. This qualitative component of data collection comes from 24 

interviews we conducted with prosecutors in six jurisdictions. We interviewed 15 females and 9 

males. Due to confidentiality concerns, detailed socio-demographic information is not presented. 

Profile of Prosecutors 

The participants were recruited to be interviewed because they handled felony sexual assault 

cases in their offices. We predominantly sought prosecutors who handled cases in the jurisdiction 

during the study period, however experience in the jurisdiction under study was the key factors 

that contributed to their participation. Based on their self-reports, the women and men 

interviewed had an average of 10 years of experience prosecuting felony sexual assault cases, 

although the range in number of years serving as a prosecutor of these cases was large – from 6 

months to 20 years. The women reported an average of 10 years of experience (ranging from 3 

years to 18 years) and the men had about 8 years of experience on average (6 months to 20 

years). While some of the interviewees handled many or almost exclusively sexual assault cases, 

others had only one or two cases under their purview. 

The prosecutors reported that they worked in sex crimes units, as well as, more general 

felony case units and in some jurisdictions the type of unit changed over the course of their 

careers in sex crimes. In some instances, the change occurred because they had moved to a new 

position and in other instances, the change happened because the approach to handling sex 

crimes in the office in which they worked had changed. There was no trend in direction of the 

change (from specialized unit to more general felony unit or the reverse) and it appeared that a 

change in who held the office of the District Attorney (DA) instigated such reorganization rather 

than any research-based analysis of best practices conducted by the office. While we did not ask 

systematically about the number of DAs under which the interviewee worked, it was clear that 

the DA turnover was great. One individual reported that s/he worked for four different DAs. 

Indeed, even during the course of the study there was turnover in the elected DA in the 

jurisdictions. In two jurisdictions, a new DA was elected during the interview period (2015-16) 

and in all the jurisdictions there had been a change of DA or in the unit head during or since 

2007, which was the year in which the first sexual assault cases in the study were reported. 

Focus of the Interview 

A copy of the interview protocol is attached in Appendix B. All interviews were audio 

recorded with the informed consent of the participant. Most interviews were conducted in person 

and some were conducted telephonically. Our interview approach involved taking time to 

develop rapport and explaining to the participant our study focus on learning about sexual 

violence case attrition and decision-making. We asked them about their career and training 

history as well as how their performance was assessed in their current position. We engaged 

them in a discussion of the cases of felony sexual assault that they handled in general but then, to 

focus their responses and get more specifics rather than generalizations about cases, we directed 

Page 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

questions to them about three types of cases and we asked them to discuss 1) their most recent 

case; 2) the most difficult case they handled and 3) the most successful case they handled. 

Specialized Training 

While the prosecutors interviewed mentioned some specialized trainings that they had 

received on sex crimes, the most common response was that they attended an annual District 

Attorney’s Office-style training in which issues of domestic violence and sexual assault were 

covered. This response represents a common reply, “We’re always having trainings and we’re

always sort of developing the best way to approach these cases.”

Notably, however, many mentioned on the job training and learning from great mentors as 

important to success. Some went so far as to suggest that classroom training offered little and 

pressed the point that mentoring was key: 

I had these great mentors. I mean I have very mixed feelings about trainings, 

because you can’t train until you’re in it. You know, I’ll never forget when I first 

started in the DA’s office as a brand new DA handling all these cases. They sat me

in a room for two days, they said, When you do an arraignment, you do this. When 

you go to bail, you go this. I took notes and I’m a good student, you know? And I

took notes and I wrote things down and I went over it at night. And then they put 

me in the courtroom and it was like— (A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD.) So 

when I train new people who come... I don’t need to talk to them... the first few 

weeks I would have a new person, I’d say, You’re just going to sit here in my office

and watch me and sit with me for three weeks. And while people would come into 

my office and talk about cases and ask how to handle it, it’s that osmosis. That’s 

the way to do it. 

Some reported having attended a “Career Prosecutor School” with very victim-intensive 

trainings and commented: 

I feel like a lot of the trainings that we get or maybe that I’ve experienced as a DA

have a lot to do with working with victims. Maybe not so much as the actual law 

enforcement investigative piece, but how to make sure that the victim’s interaction

and experience with you, the DA, is the least traumatic part of the entire experience. 

But even those who had attended such trainings would return to the “learning from watching

it done” approach, 

A lot of the ways that I learned about best practices... and how to communicate

with victims and explain the process and prepare them has been from shadowing 

and watching the way more senior people in this unit (work)... that was definitely

part of and continues to be part of my training. When I came here, ... sitting in with 

(names) and just being a fly on the wall and watching how they interact with 

victims. Because for me... what’s most helpful is seeing it in real time, in real life, 

done by somebody who’s a true pro. And that’s where I’ve gotten most of my

experience for how to deal with most of the situations that we come across. 

Page 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Another ADA asserted: 

... there is not a formal program that you go through. I think the office position on 

training is the best way to learn is to just go do it, is to get in there. Deputies rely 

heavily on their chiefs. Those are all experienced prosecutors who have decades of 

experience ... But as far as, you know, weeklong course on sex assaults? That 

doesn’t exist.

Those prosecutors who commented on the need for training, at times, were referring to the 

need for more training for the police. For example, when asked about how to make things better 

in handling these cases one seasoned prosecutor said: 

...if I had unlimited resources, it would be better training for the police, better 

resources in terms of getting stuff done like getting records, getting DNA, getting—

I mean there’s just such limited resources that we have to work with to be able to 

get certain things or to have certain things investigated the way that we would. And 

so you can’t—you can’t expect a prosecutor to spend 60 hours on one of 60 cases 

that they have. I mean it just can’t happen. 

In addition to training and mentoring of prosecutors, those interviewed mentioned the 

need for more work to be done in the following areas: 1) victim awareness (i.e., awareness 

of the criminal justice system process); 2) connecting with rape crisis centers; 3) engaging 

in collaborative outreach campaigns to reach “different demographics and different age

groups” and “tailored to the particular cultural communities”; and 4) conducting outreach

specifically to overcome cultural barriers to reporting. 

However, even given the widespread recognition of the role of on-the-job training and of 

evolving best practices, one prosecutor recommended that prosecutors receive advanced training 

on how to handle these cases. This prosecutor made the point that even when the office does a 

good job on mentoring, “more training for prosecutors in terms of handling these cases, 

particularly in the area of victim interviews [is needed]”. 

In addition, prosecutors spoke about how the training customarily started with handling of 

misdemeanor charges and then progressed to felonies (where there was much agreement that 

specialized training is appropriate). 

In conclusion, one prosecutor offered, “I think to a certain extent it is things that only

become easier with time and with practice.”

Prosecuting Cases and Working with Victims 

It is important at this juncture in discussing the prosecutor interviews, to note that our 

research found that most of the adjudications of cases in the 6 jurisdictions studied came through 

a guilty plea (see section II) and not through an adjudication by a judge or jury trial. The 

predominance of adjudication via a guilty plea was also found by Spohn and Tellis (2012b) in 

their LA study. Prosecutors take cases forward that present a very high likelihood of a guilty 

disposition. Many of the interviewee comments focused on prosecutors’ handling of trials 

(especially of handling jury trials). Indeed, there is much attention in the field on the difficulties 

of preparing victims for going to court and the potential trauma that testifying can entail. It is 

Page 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

important to note that only 10-15%24 of cases brought to prosecution result in a trial whether 

before a jury or a judge. In light of these numbers, it is useful to discuss prosecutors’ decisionmaking and negotiations about offering and accepting a guilty plea. In the text below, following 

our discussion of the challenges prosecutors reported are faced by victims in these cases, we 

discuss prosecutors’ feedback on the plea negotiations and strategies. 

Challenges for and about the Victim 

The interviews confirmed that prosecutors see these cases as beginning and ending with the 

victims. These insights came primarily as they discussed case outcomes and both their most 

difficult and most successful cases. We also asked them directly, “In your opinion, what are the 

biggest challenges faced by victims when reporting a sexual assault?” The prosecutors provided 

insights related to the challenges faced by victims and many stated that reporting the sexual 

assault represented a major and difficult initial step for the victim. “I think it’s just the fact that 

reporting it... is a difficult thing to do. It’s not a nice thing to talk about,” said one prosecutor. 

Moreover, this difficulty for the victims presents complications for the prosecutor. As one said 

about reporting, 

... I would say that’s the biggest challenge in like my mind for the victim. But I

think as a victim, it’s the embarrassment, it’s the guilt, it’s the anger. That’s the 

biggest thing facing them, I think. 

Some suggested that the issues once raised by reporting have improved: 

Well, I think that the whole approach from law enforcement has developed to the 

point where it used to be problems for victims, that is, you know, getting the police 

to believe them and then having to endure multiple interviews and just really being, 

you know, dragged through the mud—that that’s changed quite a bit...

Though this prosecutor went on to state that: 

The system, however, is still not victim-friendly. And it’s not because of the efforts 

of the players, it’s just because of the way that the system is set up, you know, 

constitutional rights trump victim rights every time. And the process goes on—it 

gets dragged out far too long and it’s very difficult for victims to make—you know, 

to stay the course. It’s hard on them. And—and there are times where the final result 

is not to their liking. Sometimes they really feel like, you know, the defendants 

don’t get what they deserve.

In addition to the problems of the justice system not being focused on justice for victims 

prosecutors identified many day-to-day struggles for victims even when they want to participate. 

As one ADA stated: 

Oh yeah. Some of them have—I mean if they don’t have a car, it can be two hours

and six bus transfers to get here. We regularly cab victims in, so we’ll pay for the

cab for them to get here to meet with us. But it is a problem, you know, when I ask 

my coordinator to set up a meeting with the victim. Some of them are driving 30/45 

24 In reality, some of the cases that are dismissed or that result in a guilty plea may have begun as trials, thus 

requiring full preparation for a trial, and if one would argue that more cases should be taken forward to trial then this 

focus on trials and the trial experience is warranted. 

Page 78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

minutes to get here because we have such a big metropolitan area for our 

courthouse. 

Finally, prosecutors spoke about efforts they have made to try to address or mitigate the 

challenges faced by victims. For example, the length of time it takes for a case to move forward 

was seen as problematic for the victims. 

I think for victims it is difficult that it is not a process where you report and then 

there’s a trial the next day and it’s over. I think that that is very hard for victims, is

the length of time. But I think that that can be managed and explained, that—you 

know. 

Although one might argue that there may be a better way to explain the length of time it 

takes for a case to go forward than, as one prosecutor suggested, to say: 

It’s like a really gourmet meal. I mean this might be condescending: it takes a long 

time to plan. And you can’t just—not everything is microwave. And I think that 

that is a way to explain—

Trauma Related to Multiple Interviews: 

One prosecutor explained the problem faced by the victims: 

Embarrassment and you know, just they’re absolutely embarrassed. They are

mortified. They cannot bring themselves to even talk about it. And you know it’s—

like I said, you’ve got to meet them where they’re at and you’ve got to get them to 

be able to tell you this and know that, Trust me, I’ve heard worse. You know? And 

it’s not your fault and you know... that’s the biggest challenge. 

However, one interesting observation was: 

....so we ask the police.... just to take a general report so we can schedule up a 

more thorough statement from them. Because if they report it to the police and they 

give their whole statement and then sometimes they go get a rape kit and they give 

their statement again, basically to the SANE nurse, and then to come back and do 

it to us again and then grand jury, it’s just too painful for them to have to keep

reliving it over and over and over. So we try to get it so they don’t have to say it—

you know, tell their story as many times. So at least in my cases, you know, I would 

say do very little statement. Get as much as you need, but don’t go into extreme

detail because we’re going to do that.

However, this suggestion runs counter to the notion that prosecutors (particularly those in 

larger jurisdictions with many reports of sexual assault) depend on police to do a very thorough 

investigation. Indeed, police are likely to interview a victim many times to get sufficient 

information for a thorough investigation that would find all possible witnesses or explore the 

details of the time, place and nature of the assault. In general, it seems apparent that this holds 

for many of the prosecutors, “We try not to interview them too many times”. 

Page 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Raising the Problem of Victim Cooperation and “Uncooperative” Victims

We note in our findings that in many cases that do not move forward to prosecution and this 

happens because of issues of victim cooperation. Such “non-cooperation” may involve an 

“active” refusal to cooperate (e.g., a situation in which the victim states that she does not want to 

go forward) or a “passive” non-cooperation situation that was labeled as “victim refuses to 

cooperate.” Such “passive” non-cooperation may result from a victim not responding to letters 

and phone calls, not showing up for interviews with prosecutors or other court personnel, or 

dropping out at various stages of case processing. 

Victim “non-cooperation” may reflect the burden on the victim of the time and distance

required of the victim for travel to meet with the prosecutor or can be related to other factors. As 

one prosecutor stated when asked about uncooperative witnesses: 

....If you’re looking at only domestic violence cases and sex assaults, I would say

that it is probably about 50/50 that you would get a victim that—I don’t like to call 

them “uncooperative,” but a victim that doesn’t wish to see her loved one be

convicted criminally, and so she may not want to speak to me or participate in the 

process. So I would say that’s about 50% of sex assaults—domestic violence sex 

assaults. I think that’s very different than stranger or acquaintance sex assaults.

Another prosecutor agreed that cooperation issues are related to the victim and offender 

relationship: 

Most of the uncooperative victims are domestic victims, so it’s a domestic 

relationship, somebody that they care a lot about, maybe somebody that provides 

financial support or their baby’s daddy and there is a lot of motivation for them to 

protect that person. And a lot of/a big dynamic that’s been going on for a long time

between them and ...a power...struggle. I would say most of the time with 

acquaintance or stranger sex assaults victims are cooperative. 

This prosecutor also mentioned the important issue of how life circumstances influence the 

type and level of victim cooperation: 

I have a case right now where my victim/and I think this happens often where/when 

you/people are preyed upon, they are often preyed upon because they are vulnerable 

in some way and so often times that means they overuse substances, overuse 

alcohol, underage maybe using of alcohol, maybe they are prostitutes or have been 

prostitutes, maybe they’re homeless/transient, mental health issues, clear mental 

health issues and so those people, since those are the people that are preyed upon 

often are also nervous about the idea of the criminal system. Often times they also 

have warrants or they have other issues that they need to deal with and their sex 

assault is the least of their worries and so, those are victims that often times are 

uncooperative or maybe less truthful or forthcoming about the context of which 

everything occurred because they don’t want you to find out that they were

prostitutes, so they don’t want you to know that they were using drugs, they don’t

want their probation revoked or lose their children or you know, I would say that 

maybe would be a dynamic that plays into their cooperation. 

Page 80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Prosecutors are aware of the challenges that may increase the likelihood that victims do not 

cooperate. One prosecutor offered insight into mitigating some of the difficulties posed by the 

challenges of engaging victims from different cultures: 

.. you know, again, we have really complex environments. We have people 

who don’t like us or trust us or are recent immigrants and their environment in their

home country was never to trust that kind of law enforcement environment. And so 

it’s a complex set of circumstances. But if we bring to bear resources early and 

often, then we—as best we can tell now, we mitigate that the best we can. If we do 

institute an honest belief in the (victim) then we mitigate that the best we can. Do 

we mitigate it 100%? Not even close. 

Decision Making-Processes and Strategies 

There is concern in the field about the extent to which prosecutors base their case decisions 

on a calculation of what will get them ahead in their careers. To examine this issue we asked 

prosecutors how they were evaluated by their offices. In general, they asserted that what counted 

in their performance evaluations was the effort they put into cases and the relationships that they 

have with others on the team, in the criminal justice system and with the victims and witnesses. 

As one prosecutor stated: 

Willingness to try a case that needed to be tried, that was important. The 

relationship with the victim was really important—how they interacted with the 

victims. So it was a combination of those. 

Indeed, the prosecutors asserted that winning was not the measure of performance. 

However, some of the interviews revealed that somehow case “outcome” figured in to their

performance evaluation. This prosecutor’s response to how s/he was assessed revealed a middle 

ground with recognition that the case outcome is “somewhat” figured into these evaluations:

It should not be based strictly or largely on whether you won a case or not, because 

offices that do that tend to have DA’s who are afraid to try cases. Because if it’s 

not a really, really, really strong case and you risk getting a not-guilty and that’s 

going to reflect on your pay or your evaluation, then you’re not going to take those 

cases. And a lot of cases, I think particularly in this area, need to be tried. And you 

have to realize that some juries are going to have problems convicting in certain 

circumstances, but it still needs to be tried because it really did happen and you 

need to do it. So I think generally people came to <a decision> based somewhat on 

outcome but with the knowledge of what kind of a case it was to begin with. 

(emphasis added). 

Even though the interviews led to our conclusion that outcomes are seen to in some ways 

impact performance assessment, prosecutors revealed pride in being willing to accept the 

challenges of difficult cases: 

I would say it would be easier to prosecute a stranger rape than it would be to 

prosecute an intimate partner rape. And that’s—yeah, I think it’s a lot more

difficult. I don’t shy away from it. It’s challenging. (Laughs) I like challenges

Page 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Moreover, in discussion with prosecutors about difficult cases some attempted to make it 

clear to the interviewer that they do not apply the label “difficult case” due to their own fear of

these cases. As one prosecutor noted: 

I don’t want it to be a he said/she said (case), not because I’m scared to 

prosecute a he said/she said, but because I don’t think it’s fair to the victim to go 

forward on a he said/she said, because I do not think a jury would convict on a he 

said/she said. 

The statement suggests that prosecutors made a calculation of difficulty, otherwise what 

would drive such fear? Why would this prosecutor be “scared to prosecute” such a difficult case?

Do they balance the decision and consider whether they will be viewed as less competent, less 

successful and be given a lower evaluation if they move forward with such a case? 

Finally, when asked directly if conviction rates were a consideration in performance 

evaluations, one prosecutor made it clear that there is a scorecard: 

Oh no, not at all. I mean I think that they’re based on the quality of my work overall. 

There are very specific categories that range from professionalism, ethics, trial abilities, 

case preparation—anything and everything and it’s very much based on the substance

and quality of my work. And we’re actually not—we do keep track of our convictions--

but we’re not focused on them.

In addition, another prosecutor made a statement that provided insight into some of the 

tentativeness of his/her understanding of how the performance score is calculated: 

I don’t think anybody is penalized for going to trial and losing, you know, as long as, 

you know, you were prepared and, you know, you never know what a jury’s going to

do, so I don’t think that’s really held against you. But you don’t want people who are

afraid to go to trial either, and when it comes to doing plea negotiations or pleabargaining, you know, you don’t want to, I guess, you know, give away the farm so to

speak. You know, you want to make sure that you’re making reasonable well-informed 

decisions that are consistent with what other prosecutors in the office are doing. But 

given that we are a very busy office, I think efficiency is also important. 

This led us to the question: If winning does not count what does? Below, we discuss how 

do prosecutors weigh the evidence? Prosecutors are often focused on the issue of proof. A 

demand of the judicial process is to prove the case in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This 

demand factors into the decision of whether to move a case forward. Cases that they see as 

difficult to bring forward are those in which a question may arise about the victim credibility. 

This question may also have troubled the individual prosecutor. Such a concern was reflected in 

a prosecutor’s statement about victim memory issues.

I mean if the victim says, I was drinking and I can’t remember what happened next,

but I remember this or that and the next thing, it’s like how am I supposed to 

prove—first of all, why can you remember some things and not the other? I mean 

proof is of course the world we live in. 

Prosecutors also asserted that they may have needed to decide not to file charges even when 

they believed that a rape had occurred: 

Page 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

And, and so, most of the time when you refuse to file charges you feel like 

something bad happened? And that person was violated ... and you believe that? 

And you know that? But being able to prove it with evidence beyond a reasonable 

doubt to a jury is a different standard, (than) just believing that something 

happened. 

Prosecutors reiterated their need to apply a reasonable doubt standard but in this usage of the 

term, the “reasonable doubt” applies to asking themselves if there is a reasonable doubt that a

conviction can be achieved. 

The standard we use is, you know, generally, is there a reasonable likelihood that I 

can secure a conviction? Um, and you know, that’s a standard we have for every

case. ... You know, I’m, I’m bringing a prosecution in bad faith if I have that but 

if I look at somebody and say, Look, there’s a reasonable likelihood that 12 people 

can believe you and if 12 people believe you then, then it’s guilty. That’s, that’s 

fine. Um, you know, we have not filed cases where I, you know, I or other members 

of the team said, Look, this kid’s believable but there’s something about the case

that, that is fatal to it. You know, there’s some family dynamic, like there’s some 

motive that, you know, we as prosecutors can explain away the past, but, you know, 

maybe it’s a financial incentive, maybe it’s you know, some inconsistency in

statements that is meaningless to us as prosecutors but would be too big of a hurdle 

for a jury, you know, .... yeah, there’s some flaw that we can get passed but perhaps

a jury couldn’t.

In the decision-making process, some responses suggest that it is on some levels driven by 

considerations of how easy it will be to win. One prosecutor told us he says to himself, “Well, 

it’s not gonna be easy to get this.” They also mention consideration of the use of the resources of 

the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutors discussed how difficult this decision is. One prosecutor 

told us: 

The hard thing is you have an ethical line that you have to take very serious and if 

you’re going to charge somebody with something like a sex assault you have to

have the evidence to support the elements of the law and if you don’t have the 

evidence to support the elements of the law, even if you think, wow, this is a really 

bad guy, he’s a really dangerous person, I know he did this, but we don’t have the 

evidence to support it, even if the evidence is testimonial evidence, whatever it is, 

we have an ethical obligation to not file it. 

As a result, the types of cases that meet the prosecutorial standard of evidence are more 

likely to fit the following: 

... situations where the victim from the very beginning says, you know, that they

were assaulted and is consistent with their story and doesn’t change anything...

(have) significant corroborating evidence like DNA or, you know, other witnesses 

who, you know, saw what happened or saw them together or came across the victim 

immediately after, if there were any injuries or anything like that. If there is a SANE 

nurse examination and, you know, the particular statements that the victim made 

are written down and evidence is collected, that’s all very helpful.

Page 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Problems arise, even in cases with all of the above listed corroborating evidence: 

.... if there’s anything sort of that makes the victim I guess less sympathetic in front

of the jury. You know, if it’s a situation where the person said from the outset what 

happened, but let’s say, you know, it’s—you know, the victim is, you know, 

involved with drug activity or something like that, if the defense can harp on that, 

sometimes that will play a role. If there’s sort of character, you know, witnesses 

that the defense tries to bring in to disparage the victim’s character or to bolster the 

defendant’s character. You know, if those witnesses are allowed to testify, that can

sort of be a challenge. And I think, again, just sort of being able to explain to a jury 

the victim’s behavior after the assault—that, I think, can sometimes be difficult for 

juries to understand that the person didn’t immediately, you know, run to the police

or run to the hospital or do, you know, something like that. 

This explains some of our findings on how victim characteristics impact decision-making 

(see section IV). Here the prosecutor described how s/he would be more likely to push forward a 

case involving a stranger, especially if the stranger was implicated in more than one rape: 

So if there was a stranger case, I would probably make the victim—I mean certainly 

would try to do everything I could to talk the victim into (going forward) 

.... back in (another jurisdiction) it wasn’t my case, but I remember there was a

serial stranger sexual assaulter, and they forced a victim to go forward because they 

had to. It was a guy who was literally sexually assaulting a number of different 

people. But on a domestic or on a—something where the victim’s credibility would

really be an issue or the victim’s testimony would be affected by the desire not to 

go forward, I’m not sure I would force the victim, because I would never know 

what’s going to come out of their mouth at trial. Meaning like if consent is an issue

and the victim doesn’t want to testify, the victim just has to say that it was 

consensual and then there’s nothing I can do.

We know that by law corroboration is not required in cases of rape. Yet, in the cases 

discussed by the prosecutors we interviewed it becomes clear that a lack of corroborative 

evidence is a challenge that may lead a prosecutor to decide a case cannot go forward. The 

prosecutor attributed that decision to ethical obligations. As one prosecutor reported: 

And then there’s other circumstances where multiple times I can think of where I

filed cases, kind of on that edge, ahhhh, I think I can prove this but it’s gonna be

really hard case.”....I get on the case, work it up and then our DNA doesn’t help

us and the witness statement doesn’t help us and the case starts to go south, further

south, and we have to dismiss the case before we go to trial. That’s a hard situation 

to be in. And that happens too. Where you just have to look at the victim and say, 

you know what? We can’t support you; we can’t support what you have to say, with

evidence. 

Yet it is not always that such cases do not go forward. As one prosecutor explained, while 

some of these issues make cases difficult to take forward and even with the proviso that cases 

Page 84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

that would be unlikely to result in conviction should not be taken forward, they may attempt to 

overcome the odds against conviction. This prosecutor suggested doing this only after a 

discussion with the victim and preparation so that she understands about the likely outcome: 

...But there are lots and lots of times—more times, I think, than not—when you 

believe the victim and you—you know, you believe it really happened and it’s

worth—those are the kinds of cases that need to be taken to trial. If—I think it’s

important for the victim to understand that it’s going to be difficult. The jury might

not find this person guilty and that’s not a reflection on her. But if you have a victim

who wants that to happen, wants it to take to trial, it needs to be taken to trial. 

On the other hand, if the odds against conviction are high even when the prosecutor 

believes the victim s/he will decline to take the case forward. 

But again, you wouldn’t want to say, Oh well, you know, you only have an 80% 

conviction rate, because if that’s the case you’re going to err on not taking any of 

those kinds of cases to the jury 

Credibility Identified as an Issue in Prosecutorial Decision-Making 

The prosecutor interviews suggested that when the victim was seen as highly credible 

because of the detail in her account and the timeliness of the report then it was more likely that a 

case would go forward. 

The information she gave me about his description was so particular, right down to 

like a juice stain on the shirt. So I felt she was credibly given the fact that everything 

she—the description of where it happened, the description of him was all 

corroborated by police—by the police in their observations. She made an 

identification on scene. My other feeling was that, again she is a prostitute but she 

did report it, so I’m sure a lot of them go unreported and she didn’t let this one go 

unreported, so I think that went to her credibility in my opinion as well. 

Well I guess in—like in any case, you would assess the credibility based on the 

facts, whether—and the circumstances—whether they make sense, whether there’s

corroborating evidence. You would also make observations of the demeanor of the 

victim and their account of the facts as they occurred, and I guess in a general 

conversation as well. 

Nevertheless, prosecutors also pointed out that they were aware that some perpetrators 

selected victims to target or may have engaged in specific behaviors designed to challenge 

directly the victim’s credibility.

He was accused of multiple rapes by multiple people. They all had credibility 

issues, because the people that he would pick would be people that—girls that were 

significantly younger than him, usually underage, that he would provide alcohol 

and/or drugs to, bring them over to his apartment, ...force and sexually assault them. 

And so there was always the issue of their credibility in terms of he would buy them 

gifts, he would get them pizza, he would get them beer, and then all the sudden they 

would accuse him of a sexual assault. So their credibility—I think he did that on 

purpose. I mean he did it to set up their credibility having issues. 

Page 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Issues raised about credibility and evidence can be overcome, suggesting that it may be 

worth taking more of these cases forward, as was revealed in this example: 

.... I had a recent ...case, the victim had a heroin problem, she walked the streets, 

she exchanged sex for drugs a couple times. The defendant happened to be someone 

that had picked her up one time, took her to a hotel room, sexually assaulted her. I 

knew he was a Level Three sex offender. We had no visible injuries, no immediate 

complaint, no—pretty much nothing. I knew a jury would have some issues with 

her credibility. She then went—you know, she’d been in recovery at the time of 

this. She then went and used that night and used before she reported it. We ended 

up not having any DNA ... So it was going to be a really, really tough case, and I 

sat down with her and had a very frank conversation and she had been at his 

arraignment, so she knew that he had previously sexually assaulted someone before. 

And she was pretty adamant that she wanted to do it and I said okay, so we did, and 

amazingly enough it was a guilty and we can’t—we still can’t figure out why, but

he was (found guilty). 

Then there are some cases where all the elements line up—victim and offender relationship, 

evidence, and credibility: 

Well this case... it was somewhat, you know, not typical... it was a stranger. It was

such a serious history that had occurred previously. The victim called the police 

right away. She had called, you know a AAA tow truck to pick her up on the side 

of the road, and then this had happened. ... received all the .... records from AAA 

showing that he had been the driver. You know, there was—there wasn’t a lot of 

reason ...to show why she would even make up a story like this. I think that there 

was also bruising on her which corroborated it. I recall also the police reports and 

the accounts and the testimony of the police officers that spoke with her at her 

home. They—her parents called 911. She was able to get out of the car and ran all 

the way to her house and her parents called the police right away. And I just 

remember how—the account of how scared and terrified she was as a result of the 

incident. You can imagine how she was just shaking uncontrollably... 

Juxtapose these cases with the following cases in which the prosecutor was reluctant to 

bring the case forward: 

I think that I can prove up certain things, but then I have a sense, well, the jury is 

not going to like that. The jury is going to like this. The jury is not going to be 

happy because we don’t have DNA evidence. The jury is not going to be happy

because there’s no physical injury to the genitals...They’re not going to like that.

Credibility comes in. So there’s a—there’s a spectrum of things to consider... 

Either they have mental health issues, they have substance abuse issues, they have 

something that causes it to be bad to have to go through this process. 

It is generally a question of evidence, and there needs to be something that tips it in 

the favor so that I think it’s in the victim’s best interest to go forward. And generally

Page 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

if it’s a complete he said/she said, I don’t think it’s in the victim’s best interest to 

go forward because it’s a year to two to three year process for ultimately—for me 

to go—for the case to go in front of a jury and ultimately I don’t think it would be

successful because juries want—they don’t want to find beyond—one person’s

word beyond a reasonable doubt. They just don’t. So that’s usually—it’s not that I

need evidence to believe the victim. It’s that I just don’t think it’s in the victim’s 

best interest to go forward without some other type of corroboration, however little 

it is that we could—and then if it’s depending—you know, depending on the victim 

and how strong the victim is, then—then—the I’ll make the decision that it’s okay

for them to go—you know, that it’s okay for us to go forward and the victim’s

strong enough to go through a not guilty. There’s some victims that would not be

able to do that, like that I just—I’ve made decisions where I’m not going forward

on a strong case because it’s not in the victim’s best interest to go forward. 

And given the lack of corroboration evidence (something that is common in most cases 

of sexual assault), the bottom line concern of prosecutors was also about how to use the, in 

some cases, limited resources of the prosecutors’ offices. 

I mean there’s just such limited resources that we have to work with to be able to 

get certain things or to have certain things investigated ... you can’t expect a

prosecutor to spend 60 hours on one of 60 cases that they have. I mean it just can’t 

happen. 

Negotiating and Getting a Guilty Plea 

With all the evidentiary issues the prosecutors cite as having an impact on their ability to take 

a case forward and that account for the decision to drop charges it is clear why they find an 

alternative approach is to adjudicate cases through a guilty plea. 

Some prosecutors told us that they viewed a guilty plea as a “success” and as perhaps even a

bigger success than a guilty verdict at trial. 

I think a guilty plea is a huge success. I mean for some reason—I think a guilty plea 

in many ways is bigger success than a trial, because the defendant owns 

responsibility. He walks into court and says, ‘Yes, I did this.’ ...the victim doesn’t 

have to testify about how much she was drinking, drugging, her vagina, it feeling 

good, her lying to her parents about jumping out of the house, skipping school, 

whatever it is. I mean to me, a guilty plea is a real win-win, but it has to have teeth. 

It has to be meaningful. 

Thus, a guilty plea was seen as a success conditionally if the sentence had been 

appropriately bargained. 

I like to see jail or prison. I believe in that. I don’t—I think treatment is a nice idea, 

but I don’t really think it works, to be honest with you.

One prosecutor stated that the bargaining is as much about negotiating the charge as the 

plea: 

We do not just plea-bargain but charge bargain as well. So if a case has problems that are 

sufficient to cause us to, you know, be concerned that... we may not get a conviction, we

Page 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

generally take the attitude that... a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so if we can 

get some sort of a conviction with some sanctions, you know, punishment and treatment 

even if it’s not what we initially set out for, sometimes it’s—.. the compromise is worth it 

to get a case resolved and get a defendant into the criminal justice system, you know, 

with some punishment or at least some supervision and treatment. So taking that 

approach, I think that increases the percentage of cases that result in an outcome that is, 

you know, not just the case dropped or nol-prossed or just goes away or never indicted. 

You know, we generally do indict almost all cases that come our way, because by the 

time they do get here ... we can be confident that we should proceed with an indictment. 

And what happens from that point on, it depends somewhat obviously on each individual 

case. But cases that do get indicted, the majority do result in a conviction of one sort or 

another. 

In this way, guilty pleas were seen as a success. 

There are certainly times when a plea agreement felt very successful even though it was 

less time than I might have wanted. I mean I can think of several occasions when I agreed 

to plea something for less than I thought it would get at trial, but I still felt that it was 

successful because we got the guilty verdict and in that particular situation with that 

particular victim, it would have been more difficult on the victim than—you know, the 

trial would have been really, really difficult and the victim was happy with the outcome. 

So—but for me, if you don’t get a guilty verdict it’s not successful

When one prosecutor was asked, “Is, is a guilty plea a success?” he replied, You know, two 

shots of happy, one shot of sad. (Laughter) 

Indeed, the prosecutors supported the notion that a guilty plea is a success especially if it 

spared trauma to the victim and got a “bad guy” at least some time off the streets. 

...If I have somebody who’s going to be damaged by a trial and no sexual based 

trial that I’ve ever done has not damaged the victim in some way um, it/trials suck 

for victims. Like there’s/we can make it suck less, we can make it less bad but it is

never, is never a good experience. If I can get close to the scenario that I want to 

have and that scenario doesn’t have to be, you know, bad guy goes to prison for the

rest of his life, but if I can get close to a situation that is safe, I’m going to do that

every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I have pled perfectly winnable cases, 

you know, cases that with minimal effort I should win 99 times out of 100. Um, 

you know, does that go into how my bosses evaluate me? A little bit um, you know, 

not/why/in the same way, why are you going to trial, why are you pleading your 

cases? Are you pleading your cases because you want to avoid trial? Are you 

pleading your cases because there’s some purpose that it serves? Um, so, I’d like

to think every plea that I put my name to serve a purpose. ... You know, if, if there’s

a child who’s going to be damaged, if there’s a young woman or a young man who’s 

going to be traumatized by it, then that’s a reason for me to at least, look at pleading 

a case. 

The interviewer asked, “Is this a win-win situation?”

Page 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

That’s—that’s a fairly typical plea bargain from us, because we get a significant 

chunk of time, he gets the assurance of being able to get out at some point, and then 

we also have the supervision on the backend. For a closer case that we have less—

we’re less certain is going to resolve favorably at trial, it’s going to—that sentence 

is going to mitigate down significantly to where, you know, on the low end it might 

be a probation sentence or a probation term of jail. So that’s—that’s kind of a fairly

typical low end for us, where we’re trying to get some measure of either sex offense 

treatment, straight-up keeping a person from going back on the street right away, 

or trying to get—make sure that they’re a registered sex offender, although that’s 

more window-dressing than anything, because I don’t know anyone who actually 

thinks that the registration does any good. 

In addition, another prosecutor reported: 

....my philosophy is, the best thing we can do for victims of these kind of personal 

crimes is resolve with a really good resolution and not make them go through it and 

relive and let them appear at sentencing and have their day in court that way versus 

going through the trial although the trial is the fun part for me when I get there. It’s 

just...I feel like if I can resolve it and it’s a good resolution it’s a sure conviction 

and it’s not something they’re going to appeal and they don’t have to sit in front of 

that person who did that to them and tell random strangers/ jury, what happened. 

In short, prosecutors argued that a defendant may take a plea if he fears a conviction and a 

long period of incarceration being imposed by a judge. 

Um, I think the judge gave him—I think seven years? And I think that after trial he 

would have probably faced more and I think that we probably would have won a 

trial. He could have said that, you know, she consented, but I think if you look at 

the injuries, there’s no way you could say that she consented after that beating that 

she had taken. Because he admitted to hitting her but he did not admit at first to 

raping her. But his attorney, I think, explained to him that seven years is pretty good 

right now if you take that. If you don’t take it, you go to trial and you’re looking at 

significant more time and—

So technically, I could have charged him with some enhancements and if he went 

to trial would have been subject to higher penalties as a potential. But for purposes 

of the plea, we went with the straight rape and he got the max on that. So yes, we 

were all very happy. The victim was happy she did not have to come in and testify. 

The victim’s mother obviously was very pleased with the result as well. 

One prosecutor also described how investigators participated in assuring that a plea bargain 

is possible. 

So in this case, the investigator was a very experienced investigator, been on the 

force well over twenty years, was very passionate about the case, you know, 

recognized the victim had issues—was aware of that and knew that the interview 

with the defendant was going to be key, and hit a home run. You know, had a great 

interview with him. It was at least, I think, over an hour and a half, if not two hours. 

Page 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

It was audio recorded. It was locked solid. And that was a huge, huge factor. If I 

did not have that confession, that defendant would not be in state prison for time he 

was in, and it would have been a trial and it would have been a messy trial for the 

victim. I can never guarantee success of a trial. You know, as some of us like say, 

we’ve won cases we should have lost and we’ve lost cases we should have won. So 

to have that certainty of the plea, to have accountability—I mean that all fell on that 

investigator’s interview.

Prosecutors made it clear that accepting a plea was about negotiating but not about 

bargaining down. For example, 

But that ability (to bargain sex offense charges away) is there...t—and other offices 

do do that, but my feeling is you don’t charge someone with rape to let them plea

to assault and battery. They’re either a rapist or they’re not, and I feel like they’re

either not guilty or they’re guilty. And what happened to that woman was not 

assault and battery. 

... if a case goes to trial and the defendant is found guilty then, you know, so the 

sentencing is potentially wide open. The judge will do whatever the judge is going 

to do. So a lot of times the victims don’t feel that the judge understood the 

seriousness of what happened. That’s not—I don’t want to put too much of an

emphasis on that-- I think it does happen, but it’s not a prevailing issue. But I think

that, you know, there are things that probably could be done to make the experience 

for victims a little easier to endure and to a great extent it’s really just a matter of

how long the whole process takes and the victims inevitably feel that, you know, 

their rights or their concerns aren’t being given the same weight as, you know, the 

defendant’s rights. 

However, prosecutors also made it clear to the interviewers that in some cases the prosecutor 

did not believe the victim’s story:

.... I think some of them fall out for a lot of reasons. They fall out because it didn’t

happen and they fall out because the victim was not willing to meet or testify. They 

fall out because it’s not a viable prosecution and it’s not in the best interest of the

victim to go forward. 

Hostile victims I mean don’t—don’t get to go to a trial. I mean they just don’t.

In addition, in another example, a prosecutor asserted: 

Where they cry rape to get him in trouble. I think that happens. You know, I 

couldn’t give you numbers, but there are some I’m like, I don’t—I just don’t—

something.’ It’s not the strength of the case that tells me whether it happened or 

not. It’s just in my gut. It’s—you know, we had this woman not too long ago. It 

wasn’t my case, but this woman was pleading guilty for basically screaming rape.

And it was proven. Like he was—he was in custody or in another state or, you 

know, something. 

Page 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Complicating Factors but NOT Exonerating Factors 

Other complicating factors were important considerations according to the interviewed 

prosecutors. For example, use of drugs or alcohol by the victim was a common factor that 

complicated a case. 

..... It is almost rare that we see a case where you just have an overcoming will or 

they say, We were together and maybe we were kissing and this part was 

consensual but then here’s what happened to me, and I said no and he didn’t

listen... That’s a lot more rare now, it happens but usually there’s alcohol, at some

level at least. And most of the time you’re dealing with high levels of intoxication. 

A lot of the acquaintance and or stranger sex assault involve blackouts, periods of 

just lack of memory completely -- after high levels of intoxication. 

One prosecutor described what was seen as a complicated case that involved a prostitute. 

They’re in his car, drives a little bit, there’s a negotiation for oral sex... And then 

she becomes unhappy with him, because he wants more than oral sex and she is 

unhappy with the amount of money he’s offered. He offers $7 and that is not 

acceptable to her. So she gets out of the car, says something insulting to him, 

‘F*** you, .... something insulting, slams the door, kicks the car, and then he

drives.... drives his car at her, at least one of the tires pass over her body—she’s 

knocked to the ground, tire runs her over, and he then scoops her up, puts her 

in....and rapes her.

In addition, another prosecutor made it clear that cases involving someone trading sex for 

money were difficult to prosecute. The prosecutor told the interviewer: 

But a jury, with very few exceptions—well, without exception—judge prostitutes 

extremely harshly, and are disinclined, as a group, to believe what a prostitute has 

to say. 

In short, prosecutors reported that many of the circumstances complicate these cases: 

...if there’s anything sort of that makes the victim I guess less sympathetic in front 

of the jury. You know, if it’s a situation where the person said from the outset what 

happened, but let’s say, you know, it’s—you know, the victim is, you know, 

involved with drug activity or something like that, if the defense can harp on that, 

sometimes that will play a role. 

And then he illustrated additional complications: 

If there’s sort of character, you know, witnesses that the defense tries to bring in to 

disparage the victim’s character or to bolster the defendant’s character. You know, 

if those witnesses are allowed to testify, that can sort of be a challenge. And I think, 

again, just sort of being able to explain to a jury the victim’s behavior after the

assault—that I think can sometimes be difficult for juries to understand that the 

person didn’t immediately, you know, run to the police or run to the hospital or do,

you know, something like that. 

Page 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Reducing the Number of Cases Taken Forward 

Considering the myriad of complications in these cases, the prosecutor interviews revealed a 

very interesting strategy which some used to reduce the number of cases taken forward. This 

was, at times, a strategy designed to reduce the caseload in the unit, or to help reduce the 

likelihood of burnout of prosecutors, or to boost the success of the unit in achieving convictions. 

One prosecutor told the interviewer: 

I believe in not filing cases and I believe... taking the better cases or the decent

cases, and then you don’t have that much attrition. It is rare .... there’s resolution,

there’s a trial. Not everyone obviously is found guilty. There’s a lot of acquittals

and there’s a lot of plea bargains, but I actually don’t see attrition as a huge problem, 

because we’re killing it at the upfront. And I think that that’s important for so—it’s

important for victims, it’s important for the prosecutors, it’s important for the

process not to clog, not to drag, not to confuse cases. I just think all those things are 

really important. 

We found that there was, in some units, a set strategy to weed out the losing cases. 

If I see a case that I’m like, It’s not going to work. It’s just not going to work. The

girl brought condoms to the party. She brought the Fireball drink to the party. She 

had a crush on this guy, and she told her friend that. And maybe they went farther 

than she wanted, or maybe they didn’t, or maybe the next day he was with another

girl. I mean where are we going? .... Let’s say I were to charge that case. I come

into court, I go, We’re charging this as a rape case. Get a bail, get a this, the judge 

says this, and then later on I’m dismissing it or the judge is listening to the evidence

and is like, That’s the case that you’re charging? So then when I come to court 

with (another case with more evidence, a coach, a parent) the judge is like, Well, 

who knows? I’m not going to set bond. Let him out in the community. Your cases

suck’ And I think jurors also will go home and they’ll say, Well, this girl claims she 

was raped at a party, but then look what happened. There was this, there was that, 

and there was a text afterwards, and the DA didn’t think we should pay attention 

to it, but how could I not? And nah nah nah nah. 

Prosecutors reported confronting a victim with the case weaknesses in a manner to 

discourage her from wanting to see the case go forward, for example one prosecutor stated: 

And I explain, This is what’s about to happen.... Do you realize that you (are going 

to) have to testify about (your) vagina? And ... testify ... flirting with this guy ... 

drinking these many drinks? And that she doesn’t remember but then she does and

she threw up and she thought it was funny and that she brought condoms to the 

party? Do you realize all those things, you know? 

The prosecutor may see this as the prerogative of the office. 

I’m very upfront with (victims)... I’m very honest... It’s my case, not yours. I don’t 

represent you. We’re going to do it my way ..., ‘I’ve been doing this for twenty years... 

I’m going to make the decisions.

 But I can look at cases and say - This is a loser. 

Page 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Nevertheless, of course, this did not happen with all cases and the prosecutor went on to 

state: 

And I want to make sure you understand I’m not saying that all the cases have to

be won in order for us to—for me to feel good about it. But they have to be 

winnable, and I have to believe that it happened. If I can’t believe that someone

was sexually assaulted beyond a reasonable doubt, I can’t charge the case! It’s 

ridiculous! You know? 

In some cases, the prosecutor justified the approach to weeding out cases by arguing that 

excluding these cases means that, 

.... then you’re not... saddling ...staff with cases that are going to burn them out

either, that are going to create emotional challenges. 

In addition, went on to explain the need for corroborating evidence: 

I mean, you just can’t/you’re charging somebody with such a serious crime, you, 

you have to be able to support what your victim says happened with something. It 

doesn’t mean you have to have an eyewitness, of course. But something has to be

able to corroborate .... that’s not fair... to her but it’s also not fair to the, you know, 

the ... the justice system.

According to some prosecutors, there was a need to weed out difficult cases and that this 

was to the victim’s advantage: 

So a lot of times I’ll meet with (victims...) and (my colleagues) —they call it breakup meetings. ... I’ll say, I know your daughter feels that she was sexually assaulted 

at this party. ... I’m telling you as (a person with experience)...we are not taking 

this case to court.... I really believe this, doing a service to them. 

Juries and Convictions 

Prosecutors also told the interviewers about the difficulties of obtaining convictions via a 

jury trial and emphasized the reticence of jurors to convict. Prosecutors told us that this jury 

reluctance can happen even in a jurisdiction where the public takes a “law and order” view and 

normally has a jury poll that is tough on defendants. One prosecutor explained: 

You know, even, even in a ...very, very conservative county where jurors would 

give me basically anything I asked for, you know, there is a stigma associated to 

somebody being a sexual offender that is a super, super, super bad thing. Worse 

than being a murderer, worse than being anything else. And you need more 

(evidence) than you would need to convict somebody of breaking somebody’s nose

in a bar fight. ... (in the case of a charge of a sex offense) it’s like, Oh, you’re going 

to ruin the poor man’s life forever. He’s a sex offender, that’s super bad. And you 

know, (t)here’s somebody who very is likely sitting at the defendant’s table, you

know, probably dressed nicer than I am in court, you know, looking like... the 

coach of their baseball team... And, and, you know, here I have somebody who...if,

if my victim’s had a rough life, maybe she’s not coming to court dressed...as one

would come to, to Sunday school. 

Page 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Moreover, jury members are challenged by rape cases: 

...it is super easy for even somebody who is ardently...pro-law enforcement and 

ardently pro-prosecution to say, I will accept this person’s word and call this person 

a sexual offender and, and visit all of these things that I think will happen to a 

sexual offender upon them?...that’s a hell of a thing. And you know ... it makes it

easier for defense lawyers to victim blame and you know, and say she asked for it 

... 

So prosecutors suggested that the victims are the ones on trial: 

Their credibility becomes the biggest—it becomes a trial about them and their 

credibility 

Yet some prosecutors reported that they would take these cases to trial as long as the victim 

understands what may happen. As one prosecutor stated: 

I think it’s important for the victim to understand that it’s going to be difficult. The jury

might not find this person guilty and that’s not a reflection on her. But if you have a

victim who wants that to happen, wants ...to take to trial, it needs to be taken to trial. 

This was described to us as occurring in the so-called, he said/ she said cases but that 

prosecutors, after weeding out the cases that they believed could not go forward, did decide to 

take such challenging cases forward to a jury trial: 

So for example, there are a lot of cases where it really ends up being primarily a he 

said/she said. And some of those cases, when a prosecutor looks at them and has 

talked with the victim and has listened to what the victim has to say, you know you 

can’t take it to a jury for whatever reason. It’s just—it’s not going to hold up... 

Ahh, you know, it’s/there’s a tipping point where you know, if, if the facts are

aggravated enough, then the juries saying, “what, what can we do to this person”?

Right? Um, you know, I, I’ve had, you know, one of the aggravated sexual assaults

in (County 2) was a gang rape situation and you know, the, the victim was just, was 

just beat and the jury was out like 25 minutes, right? They’re like, is there anything 

else (in addition) we can convict this guy of? 

However, the prosecutor contrasted this to cases that bring out jury reluctance to convict and 

evidenced their own ambivalence about the equivalence of different types of cases involving 

different levels of physical force, which the prosecutor calls the “non-violent” rape: 

Um, but on the other side of that point is the non-violent rape, you know, the 

molestation of a 17 year old, the consensual alcohol assisted... where it’s like, oh 

god, are we going to say this guy is the same as that guy? You know, that, that guy, 

you know, he can go to hell. Um, ah, god, this guy? So with people knowing, you 

know, life is not exactly great for sex offenders and, and in this state is actually 

quite awful, it’s fine. Um, you know, that, that makes it difficult for juries to glom

on to the, the less aggravated sexual assaults. 

Page 94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

The Need for a Special Unit 

We asked prosecutors their opinions on how cases should be handled and if there was a need 

for a special unit. Accordant with their reported preference for intensive on-the-job training, 

prosecutors were quick to endorse the notion of special units to handle felony sexual assault 

cases. 

Yes. I just think that it’s—it’s—having someone who has these special like 

knowledge—basis of knowledge about how to deal with victims, how to assess 

their credibility, how to prosecute these types of cases—they’re going to be so 

much better and so much faster at these types of prosecutions. And that’s a key

because the more—the easy—the earlier you can assess a case and do what needs 

to be done on it, like I said, nothing ever gets better. It only gets worse. And there 

might be surveillance video at an ATM that’s going to be gone in 30 days, and if

you don’t think of it for six months, or you don’t ask the right question, it’s going

to be gone. So having someone, specialized people, assigned, that—when all they 

do—I mean when I was in our sexual assault unit, I literally had over 100 sexual 

assaults at one time. But that’s all I was doing. I didn’t have to focus on all this 

other stuff that I have to focus on and I was—I knew how to do them. So I, you 

know, was able—I mean I definitely shouldn’t have ever had 100 of them, but

having 50 sexual assaults in that type of unit is different than having 20 sexual 

assaults here and 20 other cases that take up an extensive amount of my time. 

Another prosecutor endorsed specialized units in the following statement: 

... it’s very hard to—to learn how to develop these rapports and evaluate the 

credibility of a victim, unless you do a billion of these meetings. And if you only 

get one sexual assault every three weeks or every month or every two months, and 

you’ve only been in the office for two years, you’re just really not going to have

that skill set to be able to evaluate your victim’s credibility, and you’re either going

to be indicting cases that you shouldn’t be or you’re not going to be indicting cases 

that you should be. 

Finally, there was an advantage to collaboration in a unit to make prosecutorial decisions 

.... sometimes it’s such a challenge that you feel like, I don’t know if we can prove

it because of these 3 things? That’s when you go to another lawyer, another 2 

lawyers and bring a group of 4 lawyers in a room and say, let’s talk about this –

what do you guys think? Can we overcome this or is there other things we can do, 

should we file this, should we not? 

Understanding Attrition 

In conclusion, the prosecutors offered to the interviewers their understanding of the problem 

of case attrition and justified the process they employ in their decision-making. On one side, a 

prosecutor pointed out that they are criticized for taking too many cases forward and charging 

cases that are challenging. On the other side, the prosecutor points out that the public has no idea 

how many do not move forwarded (presumably, because these are even weaker cases) and how 

many false reports are challenged and not brought forward: 

Page 95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section VIII. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

...prosecutors are often criticized for, you know, charging these sex assault cases 

that are hard to prove or that may have credibility issues. And I’m not asking for

credit for it, but that—those people have no idea the sheer number of sex assault 

reports that we do get that we don’t go forward on. You know, this isn’t just a

rubber stamp and whatever she says, you know? There really is a thoughtful, 

thorough—and there should be—investigation into whether or not someone has 

committed this offense. And we don’t just go forward with everything and that’s 

never seen, you know? And I would never say that because of course I’m supposed 

to do that, it’s my job. But sometimes it’s kind of frustrating because, you know, 

they have no clue that we do challenge false reports all the time and we do shake 

things down and we do have a fair process. 

Summary 

We interviewed 24 prosecutors from the 6 jurisdictions, 15 females and 9 males. These 

prosecutors had handled felony sexual assault cases in their offices with most having handled 

cases during the study period. The prosecutors reported an average of 10 years of experience 

prosecuting felony sexual assault cases, although the range in number of years serving as a 

prosecutor of these cases was large – from 6 months to 20 years of such experience. 

Our interviewees made it clear that the DA turnover was great. One individual reported 

having worked for four different DAs. Indeed, even during the course of the study, there was 

turnover in the elected DA in the jurisdictions. In two jurisdictions, a new DA was elected during 

the interview period (2015-16) and in all the jurisdictions there had been a change of DA or in 

the unit head during or since 2007 which was the year in which the first sexual assault cases in 

the study were reported. 

The prosecutors offered to the interviewers their understanding of the problem of case 

attrition and provided justifications for the process they employ in their decision-making. They 

emphasized the importance of the victim in all cases, stating the cases begin and end with the 

victim. They indicated the critical importance of plea-bargaining in adjudication of these cases, 

an observation born out in the quantitative data analysis we conducted. Although prosecutors 

stated that they were not assessed based on their conviction rates, they did emphasize the need to 

determine and take forward those cases that will be most likely to reach a guilty verdict. The 

prosecutors were clear that many cases could not be taken forward for a variety of reasons which 

are reflected in our quantitative data analysis (e.g., issues that speak to victim credibility) but 

also stressed the need they felt to reduce the number of cases that a unit takes forward to a 

manageable level given the resources they had available, problems of prosecutor burnout, and 

the likelihood of conviction. 

Page 96 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION IX 

FINDINGS ON VICTIM SERVICES 

In this study, we conducted focus groups with victim service providers about their 

involvement in victim services, improvements needed in those services, and the challenges 

victims still face when dealing with the criminal justice system. We sought their feedback on 

how to reduce sexual violence, how to improve services for victims, the barriers to arrest and 

prosecution and collaboration strategies. (See Appendix B for the focus group protocol). 

In this section, we provide the results of analysis of the transcripts of two focus groups with 

16 victim services providers in two jurisdictions. The focus group sessions were transcribed 

verbatim and analyzed by the research team, following principles of a grounded theory approach. 

This approach provided information on victim needs, barriers to prosecution, and service 

providers’ suggestions on how to improve support for victims. For the analysis, we used NVivo, 

a qualitative data analysis software package designed to assist in reviewing data and identifying 

themes. We reviewed the transcripts and identified common themes that emerged from the focus 

groups. 

The focus group participants were all women, ranging in age from their 20’s to 50’s with an 

average age of forty-six. These individuals played different roles in responding to reports of 

sexual assault within their jurisdictions. These roles included victim-witness court advocates, 

police department based advocates, sexual assault center counselors and advocates, and sexual 

assault nurse examiners. 

Over the years, communities have developed Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) to 

assist victims and to find justice for survivors. These multidisciplinary teams are usually 

comprised of police officers, detectives, prosecutors, victim advocates, and forensic medical 

examiners, such as sexual assault nurse examiners and laboratory personnel. SARTs sometimes 

include victims’ rights attorneys, religious groups, mental health service providers, correctional 

staff, and policymakers. Research has shown that when these SARTs are coordinated, they have 

a significant favorable impact in the recovery of the victims and the prosecution process 

compared to systems that work independently (Campbell, Patterson & Bybee, 2012; Greeson & 

Campbell, 2013; Nugent-Borakove et al. 2006). SARTs can impact the likelihood of victims’ 

participation in the prosecution process, can make improvements on the quality of evidence 

collection, and can shorten the delays in reporting to law enforcement by helping the victim feel 

more prepared. Moreover, SARTs members report that with their intervention, victims have 

reported to experience a less traumatic prosecution process, and in many SANE/SART cases, 

both the quantity and quality of the evidence collected has increased, which may lead to better 

criminal justice outcomes. While SARTs are increasing in number and scope in the United 

States, studies have found that most sexual assault cases are still underreported and underprosecuted and that in most communities there is no review of sexual assault cases by such 

teams. A sexual assault response team was active in one of the jurisdictions covered and was in 

the initial stages of re-development in another. 

Themes Identified 

Our analysis of the materials from these focus groups revealed several important themes. 

The first theme emerged in part from a word search, which found that the most commonly used 

Page 97 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

word was “education.” This theme emerged most strongly in one focus group, which we have 

labeled as “Education Centered.” While both groups mentioned needs that we categorized under 

the theme of “education,” this group stressed the need to educate members of society and the 

broader community while the second focus group, when discussing education, stressed the 

importance of training and education for the criminal justice system (CJS) actors. Through 

further analysis of the transcripts, several subthemes emerged, including content and timing of 

needed education and training and identifying CJS actors who most needed education. 

As we began to organize the themes that emerged, we identified an over-arching ecological 

framework that provided an important context for understanding the findings from the victim 

services focus groups. A social-ecological framework offered an understanding of the dynamic 

interrelations among individual, community and societal environments and the need for 

education in each domain. The victim formed the center of this framework (the individual) and 

the community and society comprise the larger environment in which the actions occurred. 

Individual Focus 

Fear as a theme: 

One important theme we identified regarding the individual victim, revolved around the 

issue of “fear.” The focus group participants suggested that fear is a primary barrier to 

involvement with the CJS for individuals who have been sexually assaulted. This fear persists 

Society 

Community 

Individual 

from the time of first report of the sexual assault through the later prosecution stages. Focus 

group participants discussed the reluctance of victims to prosecute due to fears that they would 

not be believed by family members, by members of the criminal justice system, and by society in 

general. As one focus group participant stated: It was a snowball effect (of fear) once she 

reported ....

Indeed, fear may be viewed as a snowball. While we can understand a level of fear during 

victimization via sexual assault, the focus group members stressed the fears that arose for the 

victim during the post-report stages. Some victims feared the police because off past experiences 

or because they were, themselves, afraid of being arrested or prosecuted for past violations –

such as unpaid parking tickets or other minor infractions. 

Page 98 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

This fear is enhanced because victims’ needs were great. At first, our participants reported 

that victims encountered immediate barriers (to cooperating with prosecution) that sometimes 

were small, such as not being able to pay for parking or not having enough gas to drive to 

appointments with CJS personnel. Focus group members pointed out that when these difficulties 

were not addressed, victim needs then would increase in size and scope. If a victim received a 

parking ticket while appearing for appointments with CJS personnel and she could not afford to 

pay, she would be hesitant to participate further in prosecution due to fear of being arrested 

herself or fear that such violations would come up in court. As one victim advocate put it: 

(Victims have) fear with the criminal justice system.... I mean a lot of times 

things are turned away once they report it to the detectives. So the fear of not 

being believed, the fear of (then) being accused basically on stand...when it goes 

to trial...

Financial stressors as a theme: 

A second theme related to the individual needs of the victim was financial stressors. Focus 

group members emphasized the financial needs of the victims and discussed how such needs 

have an extremely serious impact on the prosecution process. For example, for victims to appear 

in court, they might have to ask for the day off from work and/or find a babysitter for their 

children. If the victim was living a life that was only one pay check away from homelessness or 

even losing their children, such financial burdens would be ones they could not overcome. When 

victims have already lost time from work due to the sexual assault, making further demands on 

their resources was beyond what they could reasonably do. The focus group members stressed 

that to avoid further financial strain and the dire consequences of job or housing loss, some 

victims dropped out of the system, did not cooperate, or directly opted for non-prosecution. As 

one victim services provider stated: 

... and resources too, to help survivors through that long process if it does go to 

trial. We’ve had survivors contact us who are like, I can’t take off five days of work. 

I don’t have enough money. ...or, I can’t—I’m driving, you know, an hour to court. 

I don’t have enough gas. Or, I don’t have a babysitter. So things (are needed) that 

are not ... advocates and therapy and counseling (but) ...those real, you know, basic

needs that survivors have. 

Indeed, there are plenty of people who do not get paid when they do not go to work because 

of the court process: 

... Like there’s a big difference with somebody who has all their needs very

comfortably met and has some flexibility in their world, and then there’s the rest of

the population, which tends to be our population. 

And I’ve had patients who can’t report—they’ll come in and do an evidence

collection, but they can’t report because it was their boss and they can’t lose their

job. So think about that whole situation there. Like what do you (do)? (The victim 

thinks) I’m going to collect this evidence, which is fabulous, in case I’m put in a 

position to change my mind. I can’t change my mind though, you know, because I

need my job. So I’m also now in a position to be re-victimized because of all that 

also. So... it’s those basic little ... barriers. 

Page 99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Then there is the victim’s responsibilities such as to her children: 

(The victim says) Who’s going to take care of my kids? I’ve had patients also leave

before their exam got started because, I’ve got to go get my kids. I don’t have

anybody. 

A related theme on such financial stressors related to the lengthy time that cases of sexual 

assault customarily take to reach prosecution. During this time victims not only encounter 

financial costs but also emotional damages as they find it difficult to move on psychologically as 

they had to continue to be physically and emotionally available for court hearings and while 

awaiting the next step in the process. Thus, the time involved and the need to be available for 

court places an added strain on the individual victim. 

It would be very difficult as a victim to move on with your life when you have a 

court date that is six months away that gets continued to another six months that 

gets—you know? And I’ve had victims where it’s been three years of continuances. 

And so, it’s like, Well okay, how was I supposed to move on with my life at any 

point? Because I have to remember everything, you know, to be able to recount it 

and all that stuff. 

Lack of knowledge about the CJS as a stressor: 

In addition, the focus group members made it clear that there is much that the individual victim 

needs to know about the system. They stressed that the victims are in for a rude awakening when 

they see how the balance of rights is weighted to the defendant. One focus group participant, for 

example, said: 

In a perfect world, it would be laws that protect the victim more than what they do 

the defendant...

Group members also stressed the impact this imbalance has on victims. 

And it’s the lack of knowledge of what we as the prosecutor’s office have to prove

and what we have to make them go through over and over. I mean the—the delays 

in court, the having to be confronted, what we have to prove versus what they’re

able to give us. ...it just adds .... to what they’re dealing with. And they don’t 

understand that. They don’t understand why we have to continue the case or why it

could take up to a year or longer for it to be prosecuted, just based on the fact that 

it’s the defendant’s rights that we have to always keep in mind above anything else. 

Community and CJS Focus 

Regarding the second ecological level identified, in which assistance and education is 

needed, focus group participants emphasized a need for a more understanding CJS and 

community response to victims. One of the focus groups emphasized that the delays in evidence 

collection and in court schedules presented a huge barrier in these cases. In both focus groups, 

the need for CJS personnel education was an identified theme. Education was needed to address 

the barriers to successful prosecution that were erected by the ways in which the CJS actors 

questioned victim credibility. In addition, the need for education about and increased sensitivity 

toward victim needs was emphasized along with a call for improved understanding of victim 

Page 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

responses to the sexual assault. Gaps in these areas, according to the focus group participants, 

increase the barriers to prosecution. 

Focus group participants also mentioned the need for education on the impact of trauma on 

victims and the victims’ accounts of the sexual assault:

....trauma affects the brain and not all victims are able to articulate themselves or express 

their situation in a way that a detective is receptive to. And it might lead to... a detective

not believing or not wanting to move forward or thinking the victim is uncooperative. 

And they stressed that education would increase investigators’ understanding of the impact 

of their responses on victim cooperation: 

(It) will stall an investigation, if the victim doesn’t follow up right away. There’s 

sometimes difficulty communicating with the victim and a detective getting in touch with 

each other, just with the shifts detectives keep and the work schedules of victims. And 

that can kind of slow the process down and lead to frustration on both sides. 

One of the key elements in the focus group discussions of the need for education of CJS 

personnel was the need for some focus on training of patrol officers. For example: 

...maybe we could do some way to educate your patrol officers about going, ‘I totally

believe you.’ And ... I’ve got to ask you some questions that sound really crappy and it 

doesn’t mean I don’t believe you, but they want me to ask this stuff. It does not mean that

I’m blaming you or anything else. Maybe we could just do a little bit of education for 

them to help them rephrase those questions. Because (the victim) when she came in, the 

whole story was horrible but you know, (the problem is) ... she did not like that officer. 

And we need to consider “educating patrol (officers), who are the ones who see

patients—victims, whatever—initially. If they’re educated with some sensitivity

training.... (victim cooperation may improve).

In addition, another participant stated: 

So just as an example, a girl was gang-raped by seven people. And the patrol officer 

went there and he goes, Why didn’t you scream? I mean why didn’t you scream?

You know, why didn’t you fight them off a little bit more? And so as I was talking 

to that sergeant, I was like—he goes, Well, we have to ask those hard questions. 

Burn out of police and detectives: 

And I think that there’s a lot of burnout when they start to get those attitudes of

like, ‘Whatever.’ You know, and so I wonder if... from the police standpoint, if

people need to be doing more things to help them not get burnt out .... because they

have vicarious trauma, you know? They see it all day long every day. You know, a 

lot of times they end up joking around, which offends victims more, but that’s why

they’re joking around. It’s because they’re burnt out and they’re experiencing

trauma, you know? And so I wonder if more education about how to handle those 

things (would help). 

Page 101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Theme emphasizing a need for TEAM work: 

The system needs, people that care. ... (where) everyone works as a team, supports 

each other. Help—they help debrief us or, you know, we help them. Um they move 

us out of the unit every three years so that we—even when we don’t want to leave, 

to avoid the burnout. 

I’ve been doing it—this (work) for about 15 years, all in the gang unit. That’s all I

ever knew, and I was terrified to come to family violence. I find that this is where 

I do the most, and that I really enjoy it. Am I overly traumatized? Yes. 

Theme emphasizing a need for specialized training: 

There’s turnover and things change and people coming through the system. And 

we’re working... to do training for all the (city) employees on domestic and sexual 

violence responses all the way to security clerks, everybody. Because everybody 

needs to understand this as an issue... “

System problems: 

Somebody who is very powerful with lots of money is less likely to get arrested. 

And it doesn’t need to be a celebrity. I mean you look at somebody who’s well

connected in a place like (names city) there’s a very good chance that they may not

be arrested. 

Improved Community efforts: 

We have a really good relationship with the district attorney’s office, where they

refer that population to us to get them housing and to make sure that they’re able to 

get to court and to go sit in meetings whenever the DA is pretty much pretending 

to be the defense lawyers to prepare them for—for the trial. I think that ... we’re

doing really good work, you know, as a community, in the partnerships that we 

have in our community to try to... serve the survivor to the best of our ability. 

... it takes a community anyway so—you know, it’s—in any kind of process, it’s 

not just one entity that solves the problem... there’s a lot of pieces in the puzzle,

you know what I mean? And so it’s going to take the community to... heal.

Societal Education 

Finally, the third major theme identified focused on Society and Societal education: 

Talking about sexual assault in our community is still often taboo outside of our 

circle. Most people in the general public don’t want to hear about sexual assault. 

They tend to run and hide. So encouraging and empowering and equipping people 

to have those conversations and to even be able to say ... when they encounter

somebody who might have experienced sexual assault to ask that question... that

is a challenge. ... (Yes) it’s responding to victims but being able to... feel 

comfortable having those conversations too. 

Page 102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

... I think that education on the very, very front end, before they become a victim,

would make a difference. 

This knowledge (about victimization and the system) would help society in general 

but also the potential victim. ... and (if) they could get that way before even an

assault occurred or before they reported. 

But I think if as a society ... and there is an education that’s out there so people sort 

of know the reality of things ... more believability in the whole general society—

you know, if we really do start by believing... 

I think education (of all in society) ... is really important for (victims). Because you

know, it can’t just be us being their only support system ... (What is needed is) a

family support system or a friend support system that can be with them in the 

everyday when they (start to think) ... I can’t believe this is still happening to me.

You know? 

...You have juries who believe that the only people who get raped are cute blonde 

co-eds who are walking down the street and somebody hops out of the bushes, 

because you can’t be raped by somebody you know, and that everybody screams

and fights, “give the community a sense of what would happen....”

(There are) ...a lot of conversations around bystander intervention. How do you—

how do you teach that? How do you encourage people to be active bystanders? 

What is consent? What does that look like? What does that mean? How do we equip 

young people before they get to college with these messages and these tools ...

that’s empowering to me, personally, in this field, to start hearing people outside of

the field want to have that conversation that’s focused more around prevention.

In addition, focus group participants mentioned the need to train youth about the realities of 

the system: 

Train them about what we do... maybe (then) .... when they do become

professionals and decide to take on something, then maybe they’ve already—you 

know, it’s already been kind of put in their mind that you need to be a little sensitive

(to victims). Here’s the team in (City 2), and here’s how we support you if

something happens. 

... if there is a little more believability in the whole general society—you know, if 

we really do start by believing and things along those lines, where everybody 

around them doesn’t automatically assume, What dress were you wearing? You did 

have a couple of drinks. Do you know what I’m saying?

(There is a big problem of) lack of believability in the victim. So if they’re drugaddicted, they have mental health issues, prostitutes, things like that. That can be a 

huge barrier. 

Page 103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

And I think those—if we could start off on that foot—because when I walk in there 

and they’re upset with the police officers or, you know, They don’t believe me.

They’re jerks, they’ve already decided. They’re fairly done. And I’m surprised that 

they’ll show up the next day to talk to anybody. That in itself would go I think miles

to getting people at least engaged up into a certain point, until they don’t want to

be. But if that one person—the person who you think is going to probably believe 

you least—appears to believe you? 

In our qualitative analysis, we found two categories of barriers were discussed: 1) The 

barriers to victims that came from the members of the criminal justice system (the CJ actors) and 

2) The barriers that the system itself created for the victims. Regarding the barriers that arise 

from the CJ actors and their questioning of victim credibility, service providers mentioned three 

subthemes: Questions about victims’ behaviors; the relationship to the perpetrator; and the 

circumstances around sexual assault. The victim services focus group participants argued that in 

order to minimize these issues, sensitivity training and also attention to the CJ actors’ 

compassion fatigue were needed. It was argued that attention to both of these was crucial 

because sensitivity was not instinctive or innate for all members of the criminal justice system, 

and even when officers were caring and sensitive to victims’ experiences, because they have 

been in the same job for a long time, many experienced secondary trauma. Some said they tried 

to cope with such stress by using humor even, at times, in front of the victim. Such attempts to 

diffuse the stress could obviously upset victims. 

The second focus group also emphasized the delays in court and the processing of the sexual 

assault or rape kits as a big barrier to prosecution especially on the cooperation of the victims. 

Participants said that, instead of having a focus on the accused, the system needs a victimcentered approach. Participants pointed to a need to understand that for victims it is difficult to 

relive this trauma after several years have passed. Victims adapt and learn to live with their “new 

normal.” Participants indicated that the fact that “some cases even take eight years to get to a 

trial” means that by this time most victims have moved on, moved to a new state, graduated 

from college, or simply wanted to leave what had happened in the past. 

Finally, as part of the theme of needed “education”, we found that the focus groups stressed 

the need to consider the role of the broader society and to implement broad societal education. 

On a societal level, the focus groups suggested educating people before they are victimized, 

improving responses to victims as well as implementing prevention focused education and 

changing of societal norms. Service providers argued that the timing of the education is crucial 

and immediately after experiencing a sexual assault, some victims felt overwhelmed with all the 

information they received. Some suggested that If people were familiar with how to respond to 

sexual assault, it would be less difficult for them to remember everything, and that they could 

also rely on educated family members, friends or others who supported them and who would 

know what to do and where to go. 

Service providers also argued more generally that the media influences the way people think 

about sexual assault and therefore being educated about this issue would help people understand 

the myths around rape and provide victims with more support. 

Finally, educating members of society before rape happens would also serve to educate 

those who are members of the criminal justice system, advocates, bystanders, family members, 

Page 104 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section IX. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

friends, or even potential perpetrators. They would know the meaning of consent, how to be an 

active bystander, the services available to victims, and how to support someone who has been 

sexually assaulted. Service providers stressed the need to engage the community in conversations 

about sexual assault. While it is difficult to accept that sexual assault happens, it needs to be 

acknowledged. In order to assist survivors, the victim services providers stressed the need to start 

by believing and giving support to those who have been victims of sexual assault. 

The victim services provider focus groups provided insight of the challenges victims and 

advocates continue to face when dealing with the criminal justice system. Moving forward, as 

the participants argued, there is a need for increased education about sexual assault through 

conversations, workshops, and making web resources available in the community. 

Page 105 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section X. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

SECTION X 

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

In this section, we summarize the most salient findings and conclusions from the research 

and discuss the implications for policy and practice. 

Placing our results in context 

The problem of sexual assault case attrition has persisted over many decades (McCahill et 

al. 1979; Spohn & Tellis, 2012b) and although there have been many reforms and advances 

(Campbell, et al., 2009) is seemingly somewhat resistant to reform efforts. While the National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has shown a decrease in the number of rapes in the past 

decades, current findings from population surveys of women across the U.S.(Basile et al. 2007; 

Black et al. 2011) suggest that there has not been a significant decline in rape in the past 20 

years. Rape is unlikely, however, to be reported to the police. Based on NCVS data, in 2011, 

only 27% of victims reported rape to the authorities (Truman & Planty, 2012). Data from 

community samples indicate that 15-20% of rapes are reported to law enforcement (Kilpatrick et 

al., 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Estimates for women in college are even lower. According 

to recent findings (Fisher et al., 2003) less than 5% of college victims of forcible rape reported 

their rape to law enforcement. Alcohol/drug facilitated rape has been on the rise with Kilpatrick 

and colleagues (2007) estimating that nearly 3 million women have experienced drug-facilitated 

rape and 3 million women have experienced incapacitated rape. Rape perpetrated by romantic 

partners and acquaintances is more common than stranger rape. 

While the majority of sexual assaults are never even reported to the police, even those 

complaints that are brought to police attention are unlikely to end in arrest and few of the 

reported rapes result in a conviction. Spohn and Tellis’s (2012a) research on sexual violence case

attrition for cases of sexual assault reported to the Los Angeles Police and Sheriff’s departments 

supported earlier research that had been critical of the high rates of case attrition. The need for 

further investigation into case attrition across multiple jurisdictions was deemed warranted. We 

were funded to replicate the Spohn and Tellis study in a sample of six jurisdictions across the 

country. Our team of researchers at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Wellesley 

College provided this replication and extension of the Spohn and Tellis findings and the results 

suggest that after 40 years of efforts to improve the criminal justice system response to sexual 

assault there is still a need for new efforts to bring justice to the victims. 

Our research has identified considerable attrition in the early stages of case processing. 

Although our cross-site comparisons reveal some interesting differences in attrition, a consistent 

finding for all is that, only a minority of reports of sexual assault are cleared by arrest. Further, in 

many cases the lack of an arrest is not due to absence of probable cause. As was found by Spohn 

and Tellis in the Los Angeles agencies, our replication study found that nearly one-third of cases 

presumed to have probable cause for arrest, in fact, do not result in an arrest but are “cleared by

exceptional means.” Our smallest replication sites (population of about 100,000) had lower rates 

of clearance by exceptional means than did the sites in larger jurisdictions. The smallest sites, 

however, had more attrition at later stages in the process (i.e., post arrest) and in these 

jurisdictions with lower proportions of cases resulting in exceptional clearance, the district 

attorney declined to file charges in 50% of the cases. While our research has identified some key 

Page 106 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section X. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

differences in attrition timing across sites, our findings generally demonstrate significant levels 

of sexual assault case attrition. 

Our multivariate analyses designed to examine the case and victim characteristics that 

predict arrest in the six jurisdictions revealed that legal or evidentiary factors are significant 

predictors of arrest and that the effects of these case characteristics are independent of 

jurisdiction type. Thus, we found that presence of a weapon, physical force and injury to the 

victim and indicators of victim resistance were predictive of arrest. However, factors related to 

victim credibility significantly decreased the likelihood of arrest. Such extra-legal factors 

significantly predicted whether a suspect was arrested especially those factors that reflected a 

potential challenge to the credibility of the victim. In alignment with Spohn and Tellis, our 

research supports the existence of a screening process of cases that occurs at the pre-arrest stage 

where cases with factors that may be considered as challenging to prosecution are rejected and 

no arrest is made. For example, incidents involving victims who had engaged in so-called “risktaking” behavior (drinking, walking alone, accepting a ride from a stranger), who had mental 

health issues, who could not recall assault details, or who were either actively uncooperative or 

were deemed to be uncooperative due to a lack of response to criminal justice system personnel 

requests, or who had delayed reporting or had no witnesses or physical evidence, were screened 

out. Of these, victim cooperation was the strongest predictor of arrest across all jurisdictions. 

Factors associated with attrition post-arrest include questions about victim character and 

motive to lie, victim cooperation, weapon use and eyewitnesses. At the post-arrest stage, the key 

questions were: Is the victim believable?; Is there corroboration or other evidence of 

seriousness?; and Will the victim cooperate? 

Beyond the quantitative analysis, lessons were learned from interview with prosecutors, 

police, and focus groups with victim services personnel. A major theme of the interviews and 

focus groups was that turnover of key personnel presented problems for responders. One 

assistant district attorney reported having worked for four different district attorneys. Even 

during the course of the study, there was turnover in the elected district attorneys in two of the 

jurisdictions. In all of the jurisdictions, there had been a change of district attorneys or in the unit 

head during or since 2007, which was the year in which the first sexual assault cases in the study 

were reported. This turnover was also great in police departments and units handling sex crimes 

or major crimes. 

We also recorded observations in each jurisdiction about the involvement of prosecutors in 

the arrest decision. While this varied somewhat by site-- in some sites prosecutors reviewed 

every case file and in others only the most difficult cases-- across all sites police and detectives 

reported a downstream orientation. Such an orientation impacts decision-making at the arrest 

stage. Even if the prosecutor does not physically review the case, the detective had a good idea 

of whether the case would be pursued and commonly made decisions accordingly. 

Prosecutors, in turn, report that they made decisions about declining cases or not moving 

forward with formal charges in anticipation of how they believed a jury would respond to the 

evidence in a case. This means that cases that involved a consent defense were not often taken to 

trial. 

Finally, within policing, sexual assault investigation remains low prestige and in both law 

enforcement and prosecutor offices is often under-resourced which is problematic and likely 

drives some of the attrition (see Pattavina, Morabito, & Williams, 2016) because sexual assault 

cases are resource intensive. The transition of cases from police to prosecutor is not always 

Page 107 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section X. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

seamless and some practitioners revealed that this was a point where some victims ceased 

cooperation with the criminal justice system and hence this contributed to the large proportion of 

cases in which it was deemed that the victim was not cooperative. 

Summary of Results 

In summary, concerning sexual assault case attrition, we find that: 

● Substantial attrition is pervasive in the criminal justice system. Similar to other

studies, we find that most victims never receive closure.

● The vast majority of cases do not end in arrest and even fewer go to trial. 1.6% of all

complaints ended in a trial making it truly difficult to anticipate a jury’s response to

evidence.

● Both legal and extralegal factors impact the decision making process. While these

factors show some variation across sites, both evidentiary and extra-legal factors

impact the case outcomes.

● Unfounding is not a common disposition across the six sites in the study. In

interviews, most detectives could not recall using this case disposition in the last year.

Recantation was important predictor of unfounding in both studies but had a much

smaller effect in the replication.

● Police and prosecutors struggled with the investigation and prosecution of consent

defense cases.

Broader implications of this research: 

Keeping in mind that victims’ decisions about reporting may be influenced by the 

characteristics and context of the rape as well as by the victim’s possible difficulty identifying

what occurred as a crime (e.g., Cohn, Zinzow, Resnick, & Kilpatrick, 2013; Patterson, Greeson, 

& Campbell, 2009), research has shown that victims are more likely to report to law enforcement 

if the characteristics of the rape make it likely to seem more believable to others (Fisher, 2003). 

Indeed, rape which includes extrinsic violence, a lone offender, and/or multiple non-sexual 

concurrent offenses are more likely to be reported by the victim to law enforcement. More 

typical rapes committed by known offenders who used coercive techniques that result in less 

evidence of extrinsic violence and were committed against those who have been drinking or have 

engaged in so-called “risky” behaviors—are less likely to be reported. This dramatically skews 

the types of cases that end up in studies of cases reported to police. When victims were under the 

influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the assault and violated traditional gender norms, the 

crime is less likely to be reported to police. 

When we consider the results of the research on sexual violence case attrition reported here 

in the context of what we know about which assaults are reported to the police, the implications 

and complications involved in changing the response to sexual assault are even more striking. 

Police receive a dramatically skewed sample of rape cases. Thus, while the crimes reported to 

the police also reflect the predominance of assaults by a person known to the victim where 

evidence of extrinsic violence is often not present, any broad-scale efforts to encourage more 

Page 108 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section X. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

reporting likely floods the system with even more cases of sexual assault by known offenders in 

situations that do not involve extrinsic violence. These are exactly the cases that result in very 

high rates of case attrition and thus efforts to increase reporting will result in ongoing challenges 

in case investigation and prosecutorial decision-making. Sexual assault does not fit the 

stereotype and we have known this for 40 years or more. Still, the system expects to attend to 

and pays attention to cases that fit the stereotype of “real rape.” Beyond considerations of 

improving police and prosecutor responses to rape cases and any quick fixes, it is important to 

recognize that the problem of sexual violence case attrition goes well beyond remedies that 

simply promote better evidence collection. Our research supports what victims and victim 

advocates have been saying for years, that justice requires the system professionals to start by 

believing and be ready to respond to these cases. 

Of course, this translates to addressing the issue of “victim cooperation.” A study by Kelley

and Campbell (2013) found that victims who reported loss of consciousness during the rape due 

to drug or alcohol use were significantly more likely to drop out at the case investigation stage. 

Based on research by Alderden and Long (2016), victims were more likely to continue 

participating after initial reports to police if their assaults reflected stereotypical sexual assault 

scenarios. However, since these are not the majority of the cases and because our replication 

research makes it clear that victim cooperation or criminal justice system assessment of the level 

of victim cooperation is critical to sexual violence case attrition. Thus, we need to understand 

more about victim cooperation and determine if we can ultimately reduce the rate of case 

attrition by engaging victims in the criminal justice system and encouraging them to be receptive 

to following through with prosecution of their assailants. 

Victim cooperation, however, is complex. Our findings suggest that reducing the amount of 

sexual violence case attrition likely involves much more than individual training and application 

of performance measures for law enforcement and prosecutors. Change to this metric requires 

attention to a complex web of interactions and contingencies and understanding of the law; the 

roles of criminal justice actors, including police, prosecutors, and judges in handling sexual these 

cases; the ways in which “victim cooperation” is impacted by criminal justice system response; 

and the use of forensic evidence including not only testing sexual assault kits but, perhaps even 

more importantly, how evidence of consent or lack thereof and of the role of alcohol and drug 

use and how evidence of such use is collected, handled and interpreted by criminal justice system 

actors. 

Thus, we conclude by calling for more research into the role of victim cooperation in case 

attrition. It is not clear if passive or active non-cooperation is most critical, in part because we 

have not measured the type of cooperation or lack thereof in studies of attrition. In addition, we 

should understand more about 1.) the relationship between level of victim cooperation and the 

response the victim receives from the system, 2.) how cooperation is impacted by the victim’s 

experiences with the police and courts, the victim’s resources and ability to afford the cost of 

being a witness, the level of resources devoted by the criminal justice system to assisting victims 

to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution. Based on the responses of victims we read in 

the case files, it will be important to look at how sentencing severity and the requirement for sex 

offenders to register impact the level of victim cooperation as well as the enthusiasm of the 

criminal justice actors to pursue the prosecution of some classes of perpetrators. 

This research also points to the need to take a broader societal focus in ultimately reducing 

the case attrition. An important theme identified by victim services providers and emerging from 

Page 109 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Section X. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

interviews with prosecutors and detectives is the need to educate the community about sexual 

assault so that there will be more support for victims, more understanding of what “real rape” is, 

and ultimately in order to impact citizens who comprise the jury pools. This is needed before the 

downstream orientation of the criminal justice system actors and the calculation of what a jury 

will do can be turned on its head. 

Interviews suggest that while there are those who champion the needs of victims of sexual 

assault in police agencies and prosecutor’s offices due to high turnover, comprehensive training

and development of models of on the job training for patrol officers, detectives and prosecutors 

is critical. In addition to training on response to sexual violence, we know little about the relative 

usefulness and success of specialized units, specialized services, centralized justice center 

approaches and integration of community supports on successful response and prosecution. The 

success of these approaches requires careful evaluation and documentation. 

Conclusions regarding replication research 

Concerning the conduct of replication research, our research demonstrates several important 

aspects of conducting such research. Replication of field research requires considerable time and 

much attention to the careful measurement of outcomes. The replication research conducted here 

required sampling skills, data collection and data management and analysis expertise, and also an 

interpersonally skilled team and a management strategy designed to promote high levels of 

collaboration with a variety of agencies and stakeholders, complex and strategic decision-making 

capabilities, and the capacity to arrive at new solutions to methodological challenges that 

confronted the project at every turn. Replication research needed to attend to the parameters of 

the original work and obtain a clear description of the methods and measures. This replication 

research can be used as starting point for future research including providing a baseline for future 

studies of changes in the administration of justice and the impact of innovations and changes in 

sexual violence case attrition. 

Page 110 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases References. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

REFERENCES 

Addington, L. A., & Rennison, C. M. (2008). Rape co-occurrence: Do additional crimes affect 

victim reporting and police clearance of rape? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 

205-226. 

Albonetti, C. A. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law & 

Society Review, 21 (2), 291. 

Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012a). Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision 

making in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 3-22. 

doi:10.1177/0886260511416465 

Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012b). Creating a more complete and current picture 

examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. 

Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525-551. doi:10.1177/1077801212453867 

American Bar Foundation. (2013). ABA Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations Standard 26 

1.3 Working with police and other law enforcement agents. Washington D.C. . 

Retrieved:from:http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/cr 

imjust_standards_pinvestigate.html#1.3 

Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault 

cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice 

Policy Review, 16 (4), 461–498. doi:10.1177/0887403405277195 

Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2012). Modeling the effects of victim behavior and moral character on 

prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Violence and Victims, 27(1), 3–24. 

doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.3 

Bouffard, J. A. 2000. Predicting Type of Sexual Assault Case Closure from Victim, Suspect, and 

Case Characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(6): 527–542. 

Campbell, R. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors' help-seeking 

experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence and Victims, 20(1), 55-68. 

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Bybee, D. (2012). Prosecution of adult sexual assault cases: A 

longitudinal analysis of the impact of a sexual assault nurse examiner program. Violence 

Against Women, 18(2), 223-244. 

Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge: LSU Press. 

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Joseph, C. (2006). Separation and/or divorce sexual assault in rural ohio: 

Preliminary results of an exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 12(3), 301-311. 

doi:10.1177/1077801205277357 

Faggiani, D., & Hirschel, D. (2005). The Impact of Information Technology on Crime Reporting 

(A. Pattavina Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Uniform crime reporting program data: Police employee 

(LEOKA) data (ICPSR 33525). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008a). National incident-based reporting system 

codebook (ICPSR 27647).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008b). Uniform crime reporting program data: Arrests by age, 

sex and race, summarized yearly 2008 (ICPSR 27643).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008c). Uniform crime reporting program data: Offenses known 

and clearances by arrest, 2008 (ICPSR 27648). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Page 111 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases References. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. Washington D.C. 

Retrieved from https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/ 

Feeney, F. (2000). Police clearances: A poor way to measure the impact of Miranda on the police. 

Rutgers Law Journal, 32, 1. 

Felson, R. B., & Paré, P. P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by 

nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 597-610. 

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00156. 

Frazier, P. A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, 

and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6), 607-628. 

Frohmann, L. (1991). Discrediting victims' allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of 

case rejections. Social Problems, 38(2): 213-226. 

Frohmann, L. (1997). Convictability and discordant locales: Reproducing race, class, and gender 

ideologies in prosecutorial decision making. Law and Society Review, 31, 531–556. 

Greeson, M. R., & Campbell, R. (2013). Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs): An empirical 

review of their effectiveness and challenges to successful implementation. Trauma, Violence, 

& Abuse, 14(2), 83-95. 

Herman, J. L. (2003). The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal intervention. Journal of 

Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 159–166. doi:10.1023/A:1022847223135 

Holleran, D., Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2010). Examining charging agreement between police 

and prosecutors in rape cases. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 385–413. 

doi:10.1177/0011128707308977 

Jarvis, J. P., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2009). Homicides clearances: An analysis of arrest versus 

exceptional outcomes. Homicide Studies, 13(2), 174-188 

Jacoby, J. E. (1980). The American prosecutor: A search for identity. Lexington, MA: Lexington 

Books. 

Kelly, L. (2010). The (in) credible words of women: False allegations in European rape research. 

Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1345-1355. doi:10.1177/1077801210387748 

Kerstetter, W. A. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual 

assaults against women. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81, 267–313. 

Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., & Seymour, A. K. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the 

nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center. 

LaFree, G. D. (1981). Official reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual assault 

cases. Social Problems, 28(5), 582-594. 

LaFree, G. (1989). Rape and criminal justice: The social construction of sexual assault. Belmont, 

CA, Wadsworth Pub Co. 

Lewis, S. H. (2003). Unspoken crimes: Sexual assault in rural America. Enola,PA: National Sexual 

Violence Resource Center. 

Lonsway, K. A., & Archambault, J. (2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future

directions for research and reform. Violence against women, 18(2), 145-168. 

Lord, V. B. and G. Rassel (2000). Law Enforcement's Response to Sexual Assault. Women & 

Criminal Justice, 11(1): 67-88. 

McCahill, T., Meyer, L. C., & Fischman, A. (1979). The aftermath of rape. Lexington, MA: 

Lexington Books. 

McNeeley, S., & Warner, J. J. (2015). Replication in criminology: A necessary practice. European 

Journal of Criminology, 12(5), 581-597. 

Page 112 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases References. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Misner, R. L. (1996). Recasting prosecutorial discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology, 86, 717–777. 

Morabito, M. S., Pattavina, A., & Williams, L. M. (2017). Active representation and police 

response to sexual assault complaints. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 20-33. 

doi:10.1080/0735648X.2016.1216730 

Morabito, M. S., Pattavina, A., & Williams, L. M. (2016). It all just piles up: Challenges to victim 

credibility accumulate to influence sexual assault case processing. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260516669164 

Morabito, M. S., Pattavina, A., & Williams, L. M. (2017). Active representation and police 

response to sexual assault complaints. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 20-33. 

doi:10.1080/0735648X.2016.1216730 

Myers, M., & LaFree, G. (1982). Sexual assault and its prosecution: A comparison with 

other crimes. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 73, 1282–1304. 

Nugent-Borakove, M.E., Fanfilk, P.,Troutman, D., Johnson, N., Burgess, A., & O’Connor, A. L. 

(2006). Testing the efficacy of SANE/SART programs: Do they make a difference in sexual 

assault arrest and prosecution outcomes? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Pattavina, A., Morabito, M., & Williams, L. M. (2016). Examining connections between the police 

and prosecution in sexual assault case processing: Does the use of exceptional clearance 

facilitate a downstream orientation? Victims & Offenders, 11(2), 315-334. 

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). (2012). Improving the police response to sexual assault 

Retrieved from www.policeforum.org/critical-issues-series 

Pridemore, W. A., Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Replication in Criminology and the 

Social Sciences. Annual Review of Criminology (0). 

Rennison, C. M. (2002). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 

1992–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Rose, V. M., & Randall, S. C. (1982). The impact of investigator perceptions of victim legitimacy 

on the processing of rape/sexual assault cases. Symbolic Interaction, 5(1), 23-36. 

Smith, S.G., Zhang, X., Basile, K.C., Merrick, M.T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., Chen, J. (2018). The 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief – Updated 

Release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. 

Spears, J. W., & Spohn, C. C. (1996). The genuine victim and prosecutors’ charging decisions in

sexual assault cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(2), 183-205. 

Spears, J. W., & Spohn, C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics 

on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14 (3), 501–524. 

doi:10.1080/07418829700093451 

Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis-Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault 

case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice”. Social Problems, 48(2), 206-235. 

doi:10.1525/sp.2001.48.2.206 

Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions 

in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice 

Quarterly, 18(3), 651-688. 

Spohn, C., & Spears, J. (1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault 

case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13(4), 649-679. 

doi:10.1080/07418829600093141 

Page 113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases References. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2010/2011). Justice denied: The exceptional clearance of rape cases in 

Los Angeles. Albany Law Review, 74(1), 1379-1421. 

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012a). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault in Los Angeles city and 

county: A collaborative study in partnership with the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los 

Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. 

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012b). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. 

Violence Against Women, 18(2), 169-192. doi:10.1177/1077801212440020 

Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in 

criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 

36(4), 763-798. 

Tellis, K. M., & Spohn, C. C. (2008). The sexual stratification hypothesis revisited: Testing 

assumptions about simple versus aggravated rape. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 252-261. 

Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: 

Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1998). The use and transformation of formal decision-making 

criteria: Sentencing guidelines, organizational contexts, and case processing strategies. Social 

Problems, 45(2), 248-267. 

VERA Institute of Justice. (2012). Fact sheet- Anatomy of discretion: An analysis of prosecutorial 

decision making. VERA Institute of Justice. 

Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Resnick, H. S., McCauley, J. L., Amstadter, A. B., Kilpatrick, D. G., 

& Ruggiero, K. J. (2011). Is reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with 

reported versus unreported rape experiences in the National Women’s Study-Replication. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 807-832. doi:10.1177/0886260510365869 

Page 114 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Table and Figures. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Tables and Figures 

Page 115 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice 

Tables and Figures: Section II 

Page 116 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice 

Table II.2

Case Outcome

N %

Case Cleared 1404 48.6

--Cleared by Arrest 544 18.8

860 29.8

Unfounded 212 7.3

Open/Inactive 1215 42.1

Investigation Continuing 56 1.9

N=2887

--Cleared by Exceptional 

Means

Sexual Assault Case Outcomes for Female reports to Police in 

Six Sites 2008-2010 (2007-2011 in the smallest jurisdictions) Page 117 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice 

Table II.3 

Case Attrition Comparison of Proportions Across Studies 

Replication 

Full Sample LAPD LASD 

N=2887 N=5031 N=2269 

Difference of Proportions 

Test^ 

N % N % N % 

RS% minus 

LAPD% 

RS% minus 

LASD% 

Case Cleared 1404 48.6 2300 45.7 2005 88.4 2.9* -39.7** 

Cleared by Arrest 544 18.8 616 12.2 770 33.9 6.6** -15.1** 

Cleared by Exceptional Means 860 29.8 1684 33.5 1235 54.4 -3.7** -24.6** 

Unfounded 212 7.3 546 10.9 24 1.1 -3.5** 6.3** 

Open/Inactive/ Investigation 

Cont. 1271 44.0 2185 43.4 240 10.6 0.6 33.4** 

Charges filed by prosecutor 

(adults post arrest) 363 72.0 486 82.2 405 66.0 -10.2** 6.1* 

Conviction rates (of charges 

filed) 189 53.4 390 80.2 317 78.3 -26.9** -24.9** 

Overall conviction rate 189 6.5 390 7.8 317 14.0 -1.2* -7.4** 

^Statistical analysis of difference in proportions between replication sample and original study sample. Statistical 

test p-values=*p<.05, **p< .01. 

Table II.4 

Grouped Site Characteristics –Key Demographics 

Jurisdiction 

Size 

Size of 

Population 

Served 

Full 

Time 

Sworn 

Officers 

Ethnically 

or racially 

diverse 

population 

Within 

100 mi. 

of other 

location 

Rural/Urban/ 

Suburban 

Available 

unfounded 

case 

records 

Small 100,000 < 300 Varies 10% 

to 35% 

yes Mixed Yes 

Medium 300,000 < 1000 Yes > 30% yes Urban/ 

Suburban 

Yes 

Large 600,000 > 1000 Yes > 30% yes Mixed Yes 

Page 118 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table II.5 

Case Attrition Comparisons Across Six Sites: Grouped by Population Size 

Full Sample 

Female Victims 

Small Size 

Jurisdictions 

Medium Size 

Jurisdictions 

Large Size 

Jurisdictions Differences in Proportions 

N=2887 N=534 N=565 N=1788 

N % N % N % N % 

Medium 

minus Large 

Sites 

Medium 

minus small 

Sites 

Large Sites 

minus Small 

sites 

Case Cleared 1404 48.6 189 35.4 309 54.7 906 50.7 4.0 19.3** 15.3** 

Cleared by Arrest 544 18.8 106 19.9 92 16.3 346 19.4 -3.1 -3.6 -0.5 

Cleared by Exceptional 

Means 860 29.8 83 15.5 217 38.4 560 31.3 7.1** 22.9** 15.8** 

Unfounded 212 7.3 12 2.2 66 11.7 134 7.5 4.2** 9.4** 5.2** 

Open/Inactive/ Investigation 

Cont. 1271 44.0 333 62.4 190 33.6 748 41.8 -8.2** -28.7** -20.5** 

Charges filed by prosecutor 

(adults post arrest) 363 72.0 48 49.5 74 89.2 241 74.4 14.8** 39.7** 24.9** 

Conviction rates (of charges 

filed) 189 53.4 19 39.6 52 70.3 118 50.9 19.4** 30.7** 11.3 

Overall conviction rate 189 6.5 19 3.6 52 9.2 118 6.6 2.6* 5.6** 3.0** 

^Statistical analysis of difference in proportions between replication sample and original study sample. Statistical test p-values=*p<.05, **p< .01. 

Page 119 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Page 120 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Page 121 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Page 122 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Page 123 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section II. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Page 124 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Tables and Figures: Section III 

Page 125 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table III.1 Case Status, 2008-2010 by Relationship between Victim and Suspect 

Out of N Missing N % N % N % N % N % N %

All Cases (N=2,887) 2887 0 273 410 534 565 1788

Cleared by Arrest (Adult) 504 17.5 3 2 11.7 130 31.7 9 7 18.2 8 3 14.7 324 18.1

Cleared by Arrest (Juvenile) 4 0 1.4 9 1.7 9 1.6 2 2 1.2

Cleared Exceptionally 860 29.8 9 2 33.6 235 57.3 8 3 15.5 217 38.4 560 31.3

V refuses to cooperate 860 5 282 33.0 4 4 55.0 117 54.2 121 21.6

DA reject or declined 860 5 515 60.2 1 0 12.5 7 6 35.2 429 76.7

Other reason 860 5 5 8 6.8 2 6 32.5 2 3 10.6 9 1.6

After making an arrest 860 8 9 6 3.3 3 5 12.8 3 7 9.0 5 0.9 6 1.1 8 5 4.8

Investigation Continuing 5 6 1.9 119 43.4 3 8 9.3 5 1 9.6 0 0.0 5 0.3

Open/Inactive 1215 42.1 282 52.8 190 33.6 743 41.6

Report Unfounded 212 7.3 3 0 10.9 7 1.7 1 2 2.2 6 6 11.7 134 7.5

Suspect Arrest (Cleared by arrest + exceptionally 

cleared after making an arrest) 2887 2 6 640 22.4 6 7 24.5 176 40.7 111 20.8 9 8 17.3 431 24.1

Cases Involving Strangers (N=784) 784 0 112 8 7 118 143 523

Cleared by Arrest (Adult) 8 2 10.5 9 8.0 1 9 21.8 1 3 11.0 1 0 7.0 5 9 11.3

Cleared by Arrest (Juvenile) 2 0.3 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2

Cleared Exceptionally 109 13.9 1 7 15.2 4 8 55.2 1 6 13.6 3 7 25.9 5 6 10.7

V refuses to cooperate 109 0 4 9 45.0 1 0 62.5 3 0 81.1 9 16.1

DA reject or declined 109 0 4 7 43.1 0 0.0 4 10.8 4 3 76.8

Other reason 109 0 1 3 11.9 6 37.5 3 8.1 4 7.1

After making an arrest 109 0 1 2 1.5 5 4.5 7 8.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 1 2.1

Investigation Continuing 5 0.6 7 1 63.4 1 9 21.8 4 3.4 0 0.0 1 0.2

Open/Inactive 499 63.6 8 1 68.6 7 5 52.4 343 65.6

Report Unfounded 8 7 11.1 1 5 13.4 1 1.1 3 2.5 2 1 14.7 6 3 12.0

Suspect Arrest (Cleared by arrest + exceptionally 

cleared after making an arrest) 784 5 9 6 12.3 1 4 12.5 2 6 29.9 1 4 11.9 1 1 7.7 7 1 13.6

ALL REPORTS LAPD LASD Small Sites Medium Sites Large Sites

Page 126 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Out of N Missing N % N % N % N % N % N %

Cases Involving Nonstrangers (N=1,507) 1507 0 161 318 292 279 936

Cleared by Arrest (Adult) 265 17.6 2 3 14.3 110 34.5 4 9 16.8 4 3 15.4 173 18.5

Cleared by Arrest (Juvenile) 3 2 2.1 4 1.4 8 2.9 2 0 2.1

Cleared Exceptionally 527 35.0 7 5 46.6 184 57.7 5 4 18.5 118 42.3 355 37.9

V refuses to cooperate 527 4 141 27.0 2 6 50.0 6 0 51.3 5 5 15.5

DA reject or declined 527 4 346 66.2 8 15.4 4 2 35.9 296 83.6

Other reason 527 4 3 6 6.9 1 8 34.6 1 5 12.8 3 0.8

After making an arrest 527 3 5 0 3.3 3 0 18.6 3 9 12.2 4 1.4 2 0.7 4 4 4.7

Investigation Continuing 3 7 2.5 4 8 29.8 1 8 5.6 3 4 11.6 0 0.0 3 0.3

Open/Inactive 558 37.0 143 49.0 8 4 30.1 331 35.4

Report Unfounded 8 8 5.8 1 5 9.3 6 1.9 8 2.7 2 6 9.3 5 4 5.8

Suspect Arrest (Cleared by arrest + exceptionally 

cleared after making an arrest) 1507 1 2 347 23.3 5 3 32.9 149 46.7 5 7 19.5 5 3 19.0 237 25.3

Cases Involving Intimate Partners (N=596) 596 0 124 143 329

Cleared by Arrest (Adult) 157 26.3 3 5 28.2 3 0 21.0 9 2 28.0

Cleared by Arrest (Juvenile) 6 1.0 4 3.2 1 0.7 1 0.3

Cleared Exceptionally 224 37.6 1 3 10.5 6 2 43.4 149 45.3

V refuses to cooperate 224 1 9 2 41.3 8 66.7 2 7 43.5 5 7 38.3

DA reject or declined 224 1 122 54.7 2 16.7 3 0 48.4 9 0 60.4

Other reason 224 1 9 4.0 2 16.7 5 8.1 2 1.3

After making an arrest 224 5 3 4 5.8 1 0.8 3 2.1 3 0 9.2

Investigation Continuing 1 4 2.3 1 3 10.5 0 0.0 1 0.3

Open/Inactive 158 26.5 5 8 46.8 3 1 21.7 6 9 21.0

Report Unfounded 3 7 6.2 1 0.8 1 9 13.3 1 7 5.2

Suspect Arrest (Cleared by arrest + exceptionally 

cleared after making an arrest) 596 9 197 33.6 4 0 32.3 3 4 23.8 123 37.4

NOT INCLUDED IN S&T REPORT

ALL REPORTS LAPD LASD Small Sites Medium Sites Large Sites

Page 127 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table III.2 Victim Characteristics, 2008-2010 Sexual Assault Cases 

Victim Characteristics

Out of N

Missing 

/NA N % N % N % N % N % N %

Background Characteristics

Age (mean) 2887 6 2871 27.32 273 27.4 410 25.60 528 27.02 564 24.60 1779 28.27

Race/ Ethnicity

Caucasian 2887 31 1713 60.0 65 23.9 87 22.0 380 73.1 311 55.5 1022 57.5

African American 2887 31 618 21.6 74 27.1 97 24.5 53 10.2 137 24.5 428 24.1

Hispanic/Latina 2887 31 459 16.1 127 46.7 191 48.2 58 11.2 105 18.8 296 16.7

Asian American 2887 31 49 1.7 6 2.1 21 5.3 29 5.6 1 0.2 19 1.1

Native American 2887 31 13 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0 0.0 3 0.5 10 0.6

Biracial 2887 31 4 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.5 1 0.1

Credibility Factors

Criminal record 2887 0 578 20.0 34 12.4 13 3.2 16 3.0 83 14.7 479 26.8

Gang affiliation mentioned in report 2887 0 22 0.8 11 3.9 3 0.7 0 0.0 11 1.9 11 0.6

Drinking at time of incident 2887 0 1098 38.0 80 29.3 97 23.8 167 31.3 187 33.1 744 41.6

Drunk at time of incident 2887 0 501 17.4 66 24.1 67 16.3 55 10.3 91 16.1 355 19.9

Using illegal drugs at time of incident 2887 0 258 8.9 20 7.4 27 6.6 28 5.2 57 10.1 173 9.7

Passed out (not drugged) 2887 0 33 1.1 41 15.0 43 10.5 13 2.4 10 1.8 10 0.6

Walking alone late at night 2887 0 360 12.5 30 10.9 8 3.4 57 10.7 85 15.0 218 12.2

Accepted a ride from a stranger 2887 0 188 6.5 24 8.9 8 3.4 21 3.9 46 8.1 121 6.8

Mental health issues 2887 0 552 19.1 34 12.6 33 8.1 61 11.4 94 16.6 397 22.2

Sex worker 2887 0 183 6.3 21 7.8 4 1.7 9 1.7 25 4.4 149 8.3

Either Victim or Police report injured 

during assault 2887 19 1149 40.1 119 43.6 193 47.1 118 22.3 245 43.8 786 44.2

Inconsistent statements to police 2887 106 824 29.6 54 20.0 48 11.8 68 14.7 97 17.8 659 37.1

No physical or verbal resistance 2887 389 555 22.2 74 27.3 81 19.8 116 26.6 104 21.1 335 21.4

Verbal resistance only 2887 433 541 22.0 47 17.1 76 18.5 99 22.8 108 22.0 334 21.8

Physical resistance only 2887 412 245 9.9 28 10.3 32 7.8 27 6.2 26 5.3 192 12.4

Verbal and physical resistance 2887 389 1156 46.3 124 45.3 221 53.9 194 44.5 255 51.7 707 45.1

Reported within one hour 2887 1079 343 19.0 71 25.8 84 20.5 33 17.6 82 23.0 228 18.0

Cooperation With Law Enforcement

Identified suspect by full name and 

address 2887 37 635 22.3 109 39.8 245 59.8 119 23.4 151 27.0 365 20.5

Cooperative during police investigation 2887 286 1363 52.4 154 56.3 296 72.5 202 64.5 337 61.7 824 47.3

Recanted her allegation 2887 103 156 5.6 26 9.4 21 5.1 8 1.7 36 6.6 112 6.3

Moved residence after the assault 2887 153 306 11.2 43 15.8 25 6.1 30 6.6 109 20.3 167 9.6

Did not want suspect arrested 2887 261 290 11.0 29 10.6 37 9.1 17 4.0 84 16.3 189 11.8

Spohn & Tellis

FULL SAMPLE (N=2887)

Small Sites 

(N=534)

Medium Sites 

(N=565)

Large Sites 

LAPD N=273 LASD N=410 (N=1788)

Page 128 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table III.3 Suspect characteristics, 2008-2010 Sexual Assault Cases 

Suspect Characteristics

Out of N Missing N % N % N % N % N % N %

Gang affiliation mentioned in report 2887 540 119 5.0 32 11.6 40 9.8 4 0.9 28 5.9 87 6.0

Drugged victim 2887 553 107 4.6 10 3.7 38 9.5 11 2.7 30 6.1 66 4.6

Physically assaulted victim, this incident 2887 525 1536 65.0 164 60.1 204 49.8 300 71.8 276 56.7 960 65.9

Weapon used 2887 0 273 9.5 73 26.6 47 11.5 28 5.2 42 7.4 203 11.4

Bodily force only to subdue victim 2887 0 1714 59.4 192 70.2 333 81.2 365 68.4 265 46.9 1084 60.6

Defense in statement to policea N=132 N=184 N=635

Consent 951 1 516 54.3 48 51.9 96 45.7 72 54.5 102 55.7 342 53.9

Incident fabricated 951 1 386 40.6 32 34.7 71 33.8 50 37.9 54 29.5 282 44.4

Incorrect identification 951 1 11 1.2 3 2.8 3 1.4 0 0.0 4 2.2 7 1.1

Admitted/confessed 951 14 72 7.7 10 10.7 40 19.0 7 5.4 18 9.9 47 7.5

a Of the identified suspects who gave a statement to law enforcement. 

Full Sample (N=2887) LAPD N=273 LASD N=410 Small Sites (N=534) Medium Sites (N=565) Large Sites (N=1788)

Page 129 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section III. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table III.4 Case Characteristics, 2008-2010 Sexual Assault Cases 

Case Characteristics

Out of N

Missing

/ NA N % N % N % N % N % N %

Rape or attempted rape charge

Rape 2887 0 2776 96.2 234 85.6 347 84.6 526 98.5 534 94.5 1716 96.0

Attempted rape 2887 0 108 3.7 3 9 14.4 6 3 15.4 8 1.5 3 1 5.5 6 9 3.9

Sexual contact without penetration 2887 0 3 0.1 NA NA NA NA 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.2

Time of day when crime began 2887 531 534 565 1788

Midnight to 6 a.m. 975 41.4 8 2 30.2 5 7 1 5 119 37.9 150 34.1 706 44.1

6 a.m. to noon 268 11.4 4 4 16.1 7 7 20.3 3 9 12.4 6 1 13.9 168 10.5

Noon to 6 p.m. 359 15.2 6 1 22.4 113 29.7 5 4 17.2 8 4 19.1 221 13.8

6 p.m. to midnight 754 32.0 8 5 31.4 133 3 5 102 32.5 145 33.0 507 31.6

Relationship between victim and suspect

Strangers 2887 0 784 27.2 112 4 1 8 7 21.4 118 22.1 143 25.3 523 29.3

Nonstrangers 2887 0 1507 52.2 9 1 33.4 209 51.5 292 54.7 279 49.4 936 52.3

Intimate partners 2887 0 596 20.6 7 0 25.6 110 27.1 124 23.2 143 25.3 329 18.4

Length of relationship in days (mean) 596 271 325 1216.24 - - 6.2yrs - - 4.4yrs 7 3 1245.74 8 4 1355.73 168 1133.68

Victim and suspect have a child 596 5 1 147 27.0 1 9 20.9 - - 27.5 2 8 23.7 4 7 34.8 7 2 24.7

Evidence

At least one witness 2887 2 2 1902 66.4 108 40.5 176 43.0 300 56.6 484 86.3 1118 63.0

Witness corroborates victim's story 1902 221 1319 78.5 4 1 42.9 4 0 24.8 201 85.9 273 66.1 845 81.7

Witness corroborates suspect's story 1902 1121 465 59.5 9 16.1 1 3 12.5 6 3 63.0 7 3 39.7 329 66.2

Forensic medial exam conducted 2887 1143 1389 79.6 146 53.5 203 49.8 199 79.0 237 76.2 953 80.7

Any type of physical evidence recovered 2887 0 1443 50.0 132 48.3 197 48.0 154 28.8 288 51.0 1001 56.0

Characteristics of Police Investigation

Police can identify suspect 2887 9 3 1497 53.6 165 60.3 348 84.9 304 60.8 297 53.5 896 51.5

Police interviewed suspectb951 8 892 94.6 9 3 56.4 212 60.9 129 99.2 174 95.1 589 93.5

Police interviewed witnessesc1902 2 4 1652 88.0 7 89.8 156 88.6 261 87.6 376 78.8 1015 92.0

Police conducted pretext phone callb951 5 4 6 4.9 1 2 7.2 2 2 6.3 0 0.0 4 2.2 4 2 6.7

Police got photos of victim's injuriesd1149 340 440 54.4 7 7 64.7 160 82.9 1 2 18.5 5 7 52.8 371 58.3

bOf the identified suspects who gave a statement to law enforcement. 

c Of cases in which there was at least one witness. 

d Of cases in which the victim suffered collateral injuries. 

Large Sites 

Full Sample (N=2887) LAPD N=273 LASD N=410 (N=1788)

Small Sites 

(N=534)

Medium Sites 

(N=565)

Page 130 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section IV. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Tables and Figures: Section IV 

Page 131 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section IV. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table IV.1 Results of Logistic Regression: Decision to Unfound 

S&T: Table VI.1 Results of Logistic Regression: Decision to Unfound

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=167

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=2,720

B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age 0.02 0.01 1.02 *

Race/Ethnicity

Black 0.22 0.21 1.25

Hispanic/Other 0.18 0.25 1.20

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger -0.59 0.20 0.55 **

Intimate Partner -0.82 0.27 0.44 **

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.16 0.19 0.86

Questions about Character/Reputation 0.16 0.20 1.17

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues 0.11 0.21 1.11

Motive to Lie 1.37 0.23 3.93 ***

Victim Recanted 2.96 0.23 19.33 ***

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim -0.77 0.20 0.46 ***

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted 0.30 0.28 1.35

Suspect Used a Weapon -0.05 0.30 0.96

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury -0.30 0.21 0.74

Type of Resistance

Verbal only -0.05 0.23 0.95

Physical only -0.12 0.32 0.88

Verbal and Physical -0.74 0.25 0.48 **

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.04 0.20 1.05

Number of Witnesses -0.04 0.04 0.96

Victim Willing to Cooperate in Investigation 0.60 0.19 1.82 **

Physical Evidence -0.20 0.20 0.82

Constant -2.77 0.37

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

ALL JURISDICTIONS FEMALE 

VICTIMS (N=2720)

0.31

Page 132 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Tables and Figures: Section V 

Page 133 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table V.1 Case Outcomes, Sexual Assault Cases from 2008-2010 

Case Outcomes

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Case Cleared 1404 48.7 2300 45.7 2569 88.9 189 35.4 309 54.7 906 50.7

Cleared by Arrest-Adult 504 17.5 615 12.2 1002 34.7 97 18.2 83 14.7 324 18.1

Cleared by Exceptional Means 860 29.8 1684 33.5 1567 54.2 83 15.5 217 38.4 560 31.3

Cleared by Arrest-Juvenile 40 1.4 -- -- -- -- 9 1.7 9 1.6 22 1.2

Unfounded 212 7.3 546 10.9 30 1.0 12 2.2 66 11.7 134 7.5

Open/Inactive 1215 42.1 -- -- -- -- 282 52.8 190 33.6 743 41.6

Investigation Continuing 56 1.9 2185 43.4 292 10.1 51 9.6 0 0.0 5 0.3

Large Sites 

(N=1788)

Full Sample 

(N=2887) LAPD (N=5031) LASD (N=2891)

Small Sites 

(N=534)

Medium Sites 

(N=565) Page 134 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table V.2 Sexual Assault Cases from 2008-2010: Cleared by Exceptional Means 

Out of 

N

Missing

/ NA N % N % N % N % N %

Case/Crime Characteristics

Type of crime

Rape 860 0 840 97.7 285 70.9 8 3 100.0 209 96.3 548 97.9

Attempted rape 860 0 2 0 2.3 3 4 8.5 0 0.0 8 3.7 1 2 2.1

Sexual battery 860 0 0 0.0 4 6 11.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Suspect used bodily force only to subdue 

victim 860 0 550 64.0 330 82.1 6 0 72.3 111 51.2 379 67.7

Suspect used a weapon 860 0 4 1 4.8 3 6 9.0 2 2.4 1 5 6.9 2 4 4.3

Suspect drugged victim 860 124 3 8 5.2 2 9 7.2 3 4.5 7 3.6 2 8 5.9

Relationship between victim and suspect

Strangers 860 0 109 12.7 8 3 20.6 1 6 19.3 3 7 17.1 5 6 10.0

Nonstrangers 860 0 527 61.3 208 51.7 5 4 65.1 118 54.4 355 63.4

Intimate partners 860 0 224 26.0 108 26.9 1 3 15.7 6 2 28.6 149 26.6

Victim injured-victim or police report 860 3 350 40.8 180 44.8 2 0 24.1 9 0 41.7 240 43.0

Victim also physically assaulted 860 131 426 58.4 159 39.6 4 2 60.9 9 6 50.5 288 61.3

Rape + stranger or weapon or injury to 

victim 860 0 411 47.8 162 40.3 3 3 39.8 109 50.2 269 48.0

Rape + stranger or weapon 860 0 131 15.2 7 5 18.7 1 8 21.7 4 3 19.8 7 0 12.5

Victim Characteristics

Background Characteristics

Age (mean) 860 6 854 26.9 27.2 8 1 26.2 216 24.3 557 28.0

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian 860 7 519 60.8 107 26.6 6 6 80.5 120 55.8 333 59.9

Hispanic/Latina 860 7 139 16.3 176 43.8 4 4.9 4 0 18.6 9 5 17.1

African American 860 7 179 21.0 8 2 20.4 8 9.8 5 3 24.7 118 21.2

Asian American/Other 860 7 1 4 1.6 2 2 5.5 4 4.9 1 0.5 9 1.6

Native American 860 7 1 0.1 -- -- 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0

Biracial 860 7 1 0.1 -- -- 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2

Large Sites N=1788, 

EM sample=560

Full Sample=2887, 

Exceptional Means (EM) 

sample=860 LA (N=402)

Small Sites N=534, 

EM sample=83

Medium Sites N=565, 

EM sample=217

Page 135 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Out of 

N

Missing

/ NA N % N % N % N % N %

Victim Characteristics

Credibility Factors

Criminal record 860 0 183 21.3 2 9 7.2 1 1.2 2 5 11.5 157 28.0

Gang affiliation mentioned in report 860 0 7 0.8 4 1.0 0 0.0 3 1.4 4 0.7

Drinking at time of incident 860 0 359 41.7 115 28.6 3 0 36.1 7 9 36.4 250 44.6

Drunk at time of incident 860 0 181 21.0 8 5 21.1 1 2 14.5 3 7 17.1 132 23.6

Using illegal drugs at time of incident 860 0 6 5 7.6 3 0 7.5 4 4.8 2 4 11.1 3 7 6.6

Passed out (not drugged) 860 0 4 0.5 4 6 11.4 1 1.2 1 0.5 2 0.4

Prior sexual relationship with suspecta751 1 4 230 31.2 100 24.9 1 0 15.2 5 1 30.0 169 33.7

Walking alone late at night 860 0 6 9 8.0 1 6 4.0 8 9.6 3 1 14.3 3 0 5.4

Accepted a ride from a stranger 860 0 4 3 5.0 1 2 3.0 6 7.2 1 9 8.8 1 8 3.2

Mental health issues 860 0 189 22.0 4 1 10.2 1 1 13.3 3 4 15.7 144 25.7

Sex worker 860 0 4 4 5.1 1 4 3.5 1 1.2 6 2.8 3 7 6.6

Inconsistent statements to police 860 1 7 292 34.6 5 4 13.4 1 2 16.0 4 2 19.9 238 42.7

No physical or verbal resistance 860 8 8 160 20.7 105 26.1 2 4 34.8 3 9 20.2 9 7 19.0

Verbal resistance only 860 100 188 24.7 7 5 18.7 2 5 36.2 4 9 25.7 114 22.8

Physical resistance only 860 9 4 5 4 7.0 3 6 9.0 1 1.4 8 4.2 4 5 8.9

Verbal and physical resistance 860 8 8 369 47.8 186 46.3 1 9 27.5 9 7 50.3 253 49.6

Investigating officer questions credibility 860 3 1 258 31.1 3 2 8.0 1 3 16.5 4 6 23.2 199 36.1

Cooperation With Law Enforcement

Reported within one hour 860 286 7 9 13.8 6 2 15.4 6 22.2 2 4 16.9 4 9 12.1

Had forensic medical exam 860 360 400 80.0 162 40.3 2 6 74.3 9 0 75.0 284 82.3

Declined forensic medical exam 860 360 3 1 6.2 1 9 4.7 4 10.8 1 3 10.9 1 4 4.1

Identified suspect by full name and address 860 8 261 30.6 245 60.9 1 5 19.2 6 0 27.9 186 33.3

Cooperative during police investigation 860 43 447 54.7 232 57.7 2 5 43.1 117 55.7 305 55.6

Recanted her allegation 860 18 40 4.8 1 5 3.7 3 4.0 7 3.3 3 0 5.4

Could not be located 860 11 135 15.9 5 8 14.4 1 0 13.2 3 9 18.1 8 6 15.4

Had motive to lie 860 65 64 8.1 5 5 13.7 1 1.3 1 2 6.5 5 1 9.6

Full Sample=2887, 

Exceptional Means (EM) 

sample=860 LA (N=402)

Small Sites N=534, 

EM sample=83

Medium Sites N=565, 

EM sample=217

Large Sites N=1788, 

EM sample=560

Page 136 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Out of 

N

Missing

/ NA N % N % N % N % N %

Suspect Characteristics

Affiliated with a gang 860 8 2 4 6 5.9 4 0 10.0 0 0.0 1 7 8.9 2 9 5.6

Police interviewed suspect 860 1 4 390 46.1 193 48.0 1 9 23.8 7 0 33.0 301 54.3

Defense in statement to policeb

Consent 405 0 260 64.2 8 7 21.6 1 0 52.6 4 5 68.2 205 64.1

Incident fabricated 405 0 169 41.7 8 2 20.4 1 0 52.6 1 7 25.8 142 44.4

Incorrect ID 405 0 1 0.2 1 1.4 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0

Admitted/Confessed 405 4 8 2.0 2 1 5.2 0 0.0 2 3.1 6 1.9

Police Investigation/Evidence

Some type of physical evidence 860 0 434 50.5 156 38.8 2 7 32.5 108 49.8 299 53.4

Mean number of police interviews with 

victim 860 4 856 2.22 1.87 8 1 1.44 216 1.92 559 2.45

Mean number of witnesses 860 6 854 2.20 0.69 8 2 1.09 215 2.50 557 2.24

Police interviewed witnessesc320 0 299 93.4 135 33.6 1 3 100.0 4 8 81.4 238 96.0

Police conducted pretext phone call 860 1 1 3 8 4.5 2 5 6.2 0 0.0 4 1.9 3 4 6.2

aOf cases involving nonstrangers and intimate partners.

bOf the identified suspects who spoke with the police. 

cOf the cases with witnesses where the suspect spoke to the police. 

Full Sample=2887, 

Exceptional Means (EM) 

sample=860 LA (N=402)

Small Sites N=534, 

EM sample=83

Medium Sites N=565, 

EM sample=217

Large Sites N=1788, 

EM sample=560

Page 137 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table V.3 Sexual Offenses Cleared by Exceptional Means Sexual Assault Cases 2008-2010 

Full Sample=2887; Exceptional Means 

Sample=860 LAPD=125 LASD=267 

Criteria for Exceptional Means Clearance Out of N Missing N % N % N % 

Suspect identified 

DA rejects 

DA rejects after an arrest 

Victim Refuses to cooperate (no DA consult) 

Other EM 

Other/Unknown 

Suspect not identified or cannot be located 

860 7 784 91.9 

784 5 400 51.3 

784 5 93 11.9 

784 5 243 31.2 

784 5 12 1.5 

784 5 31 4.0 

860 7 69 8.1 

121 96.8 

55 44.0 

26 20.8 

40 32.0 

-- --

-- --

4 3.2 

191 71.5 

77 28.8 

61 22.8 

53 19.9 

-- --

-- --

76 28.4 

Page 138 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Tables and Figures: Section VI 

Page 139 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.2 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest 

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=155

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=2,732

B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.00

Race/Ethnicity

Black 0.31 0.15 1.37 * 0.36 0.15 1.44 * 1.00

Hispanic/Other 0.08 0.15 1.08 0.08 0.15 1.08 0.97

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger 0.89 0.16 2.44 *** 0.89 0.16 2.43 *** 3.14*

Intimate Partner 1.30 0.19 3.67 *** 1.34 0.19 3.83 *** 4.89*

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.46 0.13 0.63 *** -0.46 0.13 0.63 *** 0.82

Questions about Character/Reputation -0.02 0.14 0.99 -0.04 0.14 0.97 0.98

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.65 0.17 0.52 *** -0.66 0.17 0.52 *** 0.71

Motive to Lie -0.77 0.30 0.46 * -0.69 0.31 0.50 * 1.36

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Most serious charge is Rape -- -- -- -- -- -- .36**

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim -0.01 0.14 0.99 -0.08 0.14 0.93 1.43

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.73 0.34 0.48 * -0.71 0.34 0.49 * --

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.74 0.19 2.09 *** 0.72 0.20 2.05 *** 2.60*

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.28 0.13 1.33 * 0.32 0.13 1.37 * 1.54*

Type of Resistance

Verbal only 0.27 0.19 1.31 0.28 0.19 1.32 0.7

Physical only 0.25 0.26 1.29 0.24 0.26 1.27 1.14

Verbal and Physical 0.69 0.16 2.00 *** 0.72 0.16 2.06 *** 1.52

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.57 0.14 1.77 *** 0.54 0.14 1.72 *** 3.31*

Number of Witnesses 0.15 0.02 1.16 *** 0.16 0.02 1.17 *** 1.42*

Victim Willing to Cooperate in 

Investigation 1.93 0.15 6.92 *** 1.98 0.16 7.21 *** 5.61*

Physical Evidence 0.63 0.14 1.87 *** 0.65 0.14 1.92 *** 1.79*

Site 1.12

Small Sites -- -- -- 0.61 0.19 1.84 **

Large Sites -- -- -- 0.57 0.15 1.76 ***

Constant -5.24 0.32 -5.72 0.35

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Spohn and Tellis 

Exp(B)

Model 1. ALL 

JURISDICTIONS FEMALE 

VICTIMS (N=2732)

Model 2. ALL 

JURISDICTIONS FEMALE 

VICTIMS (N=2732)

0.34 0.35

Page 140 
 

 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.2.1 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest- Small Jurisdictions 

FULL SAMPLE=534

MISSING DATA=54

Victim Characteristics B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)

Age 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.01 1.01

Race/Ethnicity

Black 1.24 0.42 3.44 ** 1.24 0.42 3.44 **

Hispanic/Other 0.71 0.37 2.03 0.71 0.37 2.03

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger 0.73 0.41 2.08 0.73 0.41 2.08

Intimate Partner 1.56 0.46 4.74 ** 1.56 0.46 4.74 **

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of 

Incident

-0.20 0.30 0.82 -0.20 0.30 0.82

Questions about Character/Reputation 0.70 0.40 2.00 0.70 0.40 2.00

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.86 0.51 0.42 -0.86 0.51 0.42

Motive to Lie -0.23 1.33 0.74 -0.23 1.33 0.74

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted 

Victim

-0.30 0.35 0.74 -0.30 0.35 0.74

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.20 0.57 0.82 -0.20 0.57 0.82

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.28 0.56 1.32 0.28 0.56 1.32

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.44 0.32 1.55 0.44 0.32 1.55

Type of Resistance

Verbal only 0.51 0.43 1.66 0.51 0.43 1.66

Physical only 0.93 0.65 2.54 0.93 0.65 2.54

Verbal and Physical 1.19 0.39 3.30 ** 1.19 0.39 3.30 **

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.68 0.31 1.98 * 0.68 0.31 1.98 *

Number of Witnesses 0.23 0.08 1.26 ** 0.23 0.08 1.26 **

Victim Willing to Cooperate in 

Investigation 1.78 0.44 5.91 *** 1.78 0.44 5.91 ***

Physical Evidence 0.41 0.33 1.50 0.41 0.33 1.50

Site W as reference 

 Site U -0.50 0.37 0.60 -- -- --

 Site V 0.59 0.37 1.80 -- -- --

Site U as reference `

 Site W -- -- -- 0.50 0.37 1.65

 Site V -- -- -- 1.09 0.36 2.97 **

Constant -6.13 2.76 -6.63 2.76

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Model 1. ALL 

JURISDICTIONS SMALL 

SITE FEMALE VICTIMS 

(N=480)

Model 2. ALL 

JURISDICTIONS SMALL 

SITE FEMALE VICTIMS 

(N=480)

0.32 0.32

Page 141 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.2.2 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest- Medium Jurisdictions 

FULL SAMPLE=565

MISSING DATA=29

B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age 0.01 0.01 1.01

Race/Ethnicity

Black -0.21 0.35 0.81

Hispanic/Other -0.04 0.38 0.96

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger 1.05 0.44 2.86 *

Intimate Partner 1.06 0.48 2.88 *

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.85 0.32 0.43 **

Questions about Character/Reputation -0.59 0.39 0.55

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.85 0.47 0.43

Motive to Lie -0.45 0.61 0.64

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim 0.05 0.35 1.05

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.93 0.70 0.39

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.37 0.54 1.45

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.80 0.30 2.22 **

Type of Resistance

Verbal only -0.28 0.49 0.76

Physical only 0.33 0.73 1.39

Verbal and Physical 0.37 0.42 1.44

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.69 0.33 1.99 *

Number of Witnesses 0.16 0.05 1.17 **

Victim Willing to Cooperate in 

Investigation 2.46 0.54 11.69 ***

Physical Evidence 0.52 0.34 1.68

Constant -6.67 1.38

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Model 1. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

MEDIUM SITE FEMALE 

VICTIMS (N=536)

0.38

Page 142 
 

 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.2.3 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest- Large Jurisdictions 

FULL SAMPLE=1788

MISSING DATA=72

Victim Characteristics B SE Exp(B)

Age 0.00 0.01 1.00

Race/Ethnicity

Black 0.25 0.19 1.28

Hispanic/Other 0.13 0.19 1.13

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger 0.94 0.20 2.57 **

Intimate Partner 1.35 0.24 3.87 **

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.38 0.17 0.68 *

Questions about Character/Reputation -0.08 0.16 0.92

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.65 0.20 0.52 **

Motive to Lie -1.00 0.39 0.37 *

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim 0.25 0.19 1.28

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.64 0.30 0.53 *

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.72 0.24 2.05 **

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.17 0.16 1.18

Type of Resistance

Verbal only 0.14 0.25 1.14

Physical only -0.10 0.33 0.90

Verbal and Physical 0.41 0.23 1.51

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.44 0.19 1.56 *

Number of Witnesses 0.17 0.03 1.18 **

Victim Willing to Cooperate in Investigation 2.10 0.18 8.20 ***

Physical Evidence 0.75 0.19 2.11 ***

Site (Y=comparison)

Site Z 0.43 0.19 1.54 *

Constant -7.27 0.88

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Model 1. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

LARGE SITE FEMALE VICTIMS 

(N=1716)

0.39

Page 143 
 

 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Table VI.3 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest by Relationship Type 

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=155

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=2,732

B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.04 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.98 0.03 0.01 1.03 * 0.99

Race/Ethnicity

Black 0.40 0.37 1.49 1.09 0.52 0.20 1.69 ** 1.74 -0.22 0.33 0.80 0.43

Hispanic/Other 0.17 0.38 1.19 1.47 0.00 0.20 1.00 1.01 -0.05 0.31 0.95 0.76

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.63 0.30 0.53 * 1.75 -0.38 0.17 0.68 * 0.80 -0.36 0.32 0.70 0.35

Questions about Character/Reputation 0.32 0.31 1.38 0.96 -0.11 0.19 0.90 1.14 0.12 0.33 1.13 0.87

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.66 0.41 0.52 0.23 -0.60 0.23 0.55 ** 0.49 -1.03 0.41 0.36 * 0.67

Motive to Lie 0.10 0.55 1.10 1.40 -1.60 0.62 0.20 ** 1.22 -0.47 0.59 0.62 2.27

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Most serious charge is Rape -- -- -- 0.65 -- -- -- .21* -- -- -- 0.41

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim -0.13 0.35 0.88 1.00 -0.27 0.18 0.76 1.88 1.13 0.39 3.09 ** 0.19

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.92 0.83 0.40 -- -0.88 0.40 0.42 * -- -0.04 1.20 0.96 --

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.77 0.34 2.16 * 2.65 0.19 0.36 1.21 2.36 0.98 0.39 2.66 * 9.07*

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury -0.04 0.31 0.97 2.49 0.25 0.17 1.28 0.98 0.68 0.27 1.98 * 2.61*

Type of Resistance

Verbal only 0.79 0.49 2.20 0.34 0.04 0.24 1.05 0.52 1.19 0.53 3.28 * 1.62

Physical only -0.41 0.57 0.66 2.16 0.55 0.36 1.73 0.91 1.09 0.68 2.96 2.29

Verbal and Physical 0.85 0.37 2.33 * 1.83 0.43 0.21 1.54 * 1.46 1.64 0.48 5.18 ** 2.20

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.31 0.45 1.36 3.60* 0.54 0.19 1.72 ** 5.70* 0.90 0.30 2.45 ** 2.74

Number of Witnesses 0.13 0.03 1.14 *** 1.66* 0.18 0.03 1.19 *** 1.56* 0.14 0.06 1.15 * 1.16

Victim Willing to Cooperate in Investigation 2.27 0.41 9.71 *** 3.20 2.17 0.22 8.74 *** 20.74* 1.53 0.31 4.61 *** 2.36*

Physical Evidence 1.22 0.40 3.40 ** 0.79 0.26 0.19 1.30 2.38* 1.30 0.30 3.65 *** 1.95

Site 0.86 1.32 0.98

Small Sites 0.94 0.54 2.57 0.36 0.26 1.43 0.96 0.40 2.61 *

Large Sites 0.62 0.42 1.86 0.56 0.20 1.75 ** 0.44 0.34 1.56

Constant -6.22 0.87 -4.18 0.40 -7.11 0.82

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Spohn and 

Tellis Exp 

(B)

MODEL 1.ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS STRANGERS 

(N=738)

MODEL 2. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS 

NONSTRANGERS (N=1435)

MODEL 3. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS INTIMATE 

PARTNERS (N=559)

0.36 0.31 0.51

Spohn and 

Tellis Exp 

(B)

Spohn and 

Tellis Exp 

(B) Page 144 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.3.1 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Exceptional Means VS Cleared by 

Arrest Adult 

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=1544

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=1,343

B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.01 1.01

Race/Ethnicity

Black 0.15 0.17 1.16 0.31 0.17 1.36

Hispanic/Other 0.10 0.17 1.10 0.17 0.17 1.19

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger -0.02 0.20 0.99 -0.04 0.21 0.97

Intimate Partner 0.14 0.23 1.15 0.19 0.24 1.21

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.57 0.15 0.57 *** -0.59 0.15 0.55 ***

Questions about Character/Reputation -0.22 0.15 0.81 -0.17 0.16 0.85

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.76 0.19 0.47 *** -0.77 0.19 0.46 ***

Motive to Lie -0.53 0.34 0.59 -0.37 0.34 0.69

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim 0.18 0.16 1.20 0.03 0.16 1.03

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.45 0.37 0.64 -0.38 0.38 0.69

Suspect Used a Weapon 1.17 0.26 3.24 *** 1.21 0.27 3.34 ***

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.14 0.14 1.15 0.27 0.15 1.31

Type of Resistance

Verbal only 0.03 0.21 1.03 0.06 0.22 1.06

Physical only 0.37 0.30 1.44 0.49 0.31 1.63

Verbal and Physical 0.42 0.19 1.52 * 0.53 0.19 1.70 **

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.69 0.16 1.99 *** 0.60 0.17 1.83 ***

Number of Witnesses 0.10 0.02 1.11 *** 0.12 0.02 1.13 ***

Victim Willing to Cooperate in Investigation 1.76 0.17 5.82 *** 1.74 0.17 5.72 ***

Physical Evidence 0.38 0.17 1.46 * 0.54 0.17 1.71 **

Site

Small Sites -- -- -- 1.57 0.24 4.80 ***

Large Sites -- -- -- 0.49 0.17 1.64 **

Constant -3.04 0.36 -3.74 0.40

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Model 1. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS (N=1343)

Model 2. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS (N=1343)

0.31 0.35

Page 145 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.4 Charging Decisions in Rape Cases: Results of the Multinomial Logistic 

Regression Analysis of Three-Category Charging Variable 

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=1888

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=999

B SE

S&T 

Exp(B) B SE

S&T 

Exp(B)

Victim characteristics

Age -0.01 0.01 0.99 1.04* 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.03

Black -0.28 0.23 0.76 0.55 0.40 0.25 1.49 0.50

Hispanic/Other -0.31 0.21 0.74 0.57 0.19 0.24 1.21 0.51

Nonstranger 0.55 0.28 1.72 * 1.80 0.23 0.29 1.26 1.19

Intimate Partner 0.24 0.32 1.27 1.49 0.02 0.32 1.03 1.48

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of 

Incident 0.59 0.20 1.81 ** 2.78* 0.28 0.22 1.33 1.55

Questions about Character/Reputation 0.13 0.20 1.14 2.35 0.54 0.22 1.72 * 2.38

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues 0.99 0.24 2.70 *** 2.92 -0.06 0.29 0.94 2.73

Motive to Lie 0.89 0.48 0.41 2.43 0.84 0.54 2.31 4.97*

Case Seriousness

Most serious charge -- -- -- 2.78* -- -- -- 1.55

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim 0.10 0.22 1.11 1.13 0.49 0.27 1.64 1.76

Victim Doesn't Recall Assault 0.73 0.33 2.07 * -- 0.11 0.44 1.12 --

Suspect Used a Weapon -1.96 0.45 0.14 *** 0.17* -0.35 0.31 0.70 0.38*

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury -0.56 0.19 0.57 ** 0.65 -0.07 0.22 0.94 0.86

Verbal only 0.26 0.29 1.29 1.07 0.16 0.37 1.17 0.80

Physical only -0.13 0.40 0.88 0.49 0.05 0.48 1.05 0.61

Verbal and Physical -0.27 0.26 0.76 0.41* -0.01 0.33 0.99 0.54

Strength of evidence

Reported within one day -0.64 0.21 0.53 * 0.19* 0.43 0.27 1.53 0.98

Number of Witnesses -0.10 0.03 0.91 ** 0.76* -0.07 0.03 0.93 * 1.01

Victim Willing to Cooperate in 

Investigation -1.09 0.23 0.34 *** 0.04* -0.83 0.26 0.44 ** 0.10*

Physical Evidence -0.51 0.22 0.60 * 0.42* -0.16 0.25 0.85 1.32

Site

LAPD site - - - 1.03 - - - 0.68

Small -2.24 0.44 0.11 *** 1.34 0.40 3.83 ***

Large 0.11 0.22 1.12 0.98 0.33 2.66 **

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01,***p<.001

0.35

Model 1. Charges Rejected Before Suspect 

Arrested

Model 2. Charges Rejected After Suspect 

Arrested

Exp(B) Exp(B)

Page 146 
 

 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Tables and Figures: Section VI. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Table VI.5 Results of Logistic Regression: Cleared by Arrest Adult- Charges Filed- Guilty 

Conviction 

FULL SAMPLE=2,887

MISSING DATA=2538

ANALYSIS SAMPLE=349

B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)

Victim Characteristics

Age -0.01 0.01 0.99 -0.01 0.01 0.99

Race/Ethnicity

Black -0.01 0.31 0.99 -0.10 0.33 0.90

Hispanic/Other 0.03 0.28 1.03 -0.03 0.29 0.97

Relationship to Suspect

Nonstranger -0.84 0.36 0.43 * -0.88 0.37 0.41 *

Intimate Partner -0.41 0.40 0.66 -0.46 0.40 0.63

Risk-Taking Behavior at Time of Incident -0.52 0.26 0.59 * -0.46 0.27 0.63

Questions about Character/Reputation 0.14 0.29 1.15 0.25 0.30 1.28

Mental Illness or Mental Health Issues -0.07 0.37 0.94 -0.07 0.38 0.94

Motive to Lie 0.39 0.87 1.47 0.29 0.92 1.34

Indicators of Case Seriousness

Suspect Physically Assaulted Victim

Suspect Did Physically Assaulted Victim 0.24 0.29 1.28 0.36 0.30 1.43

Victim Doesn't Recall Being Assaulted -0.54 0.74 0.58 -0.58 0.75 0.56

Suspect Used a Weapon 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.02 0.37 1.02

Victim Suffered Collateral Injury 0.35 0.27 1.42 0.20 0.28 1.22

Type of Resistance

Verbal only -0.02 0.44 0.98 0.08 0.45 1.08

Physical only -0.36 0.60 0.70 -0.38 0.61 0.69

Verbal and Physical -0.35 0.37 0.71 -0.36 0.38 0.70

Strength of Evidence

Anyone Reported within One Day 0.56 0.32 1.75 0.63 0.33 1.87

Number of Witnesses 0.04 0.03 1.04 0.03 0.03 1.04

Victim Willing to Cooperate in Investigation 0.99 0.41 2.69 * 0.88 0.41 2.40 *

Physical Evidence 0.12 0.31 1.12 0.07 0.33 1.07

Site

Small Sites -- -- -- -1.29 0.44 0.28 **

Large Sites -- -- -- -0.96 0.31 0.38 **

Constant -0.50 0.73 0.45 0.78

Nagelkerke R2

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Model 1. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS (N=349)

Model 2. ALL JURISDICTIONS 

FEMALE VICTIMS (N=349)

0.11 0.16

Page 147 
 

 

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases Appendices. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions 

or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Appendices 

Page 148 
"QQFOEJY"$BTF3FDPSE3FWJFX%BUB$PMMFDUJPO'PSNT UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

POLICE INCIDENT REVIEW CODING FORM

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

Number of VicƟms_________ Number of Suspects*_________

*COMPLETE MULTIPLE SUSPECT (green) FORM

PART 1 ABOUT THE CASE Today/CompleƟon Date: ___________

1) Current Status of Case:(CASESTATNUM)

a. පCleared by arrest (adult) d. පCleared by arrest (juvenile) g. පOpen/InacƟve

b. පCleared by other (adult) e. පCleared by other, (juvenile) h. පCleared by excepƟonal means

c. පInvesƟgaƟon conƟnuing f. පReport unfounded

2) If not cleared by arrest, what is the agency Clearance Code or Status?(Check One) (AOWHY)

a. පNo further workable informaƟon l. පMisdemeanor Įled, warrant obtained,

b. පInsuĸcient evidence (not referred to DA) m. පExtradiƟon denied

c. පV refuses to cooperate (not referred to DA) n. පApplicaƟon approved

d. පVicƟm unavailable (not referred to the DA o. පApplicaƟon denied or withdrawn

e. පExcepƟonal p. පJuvenile diverted

f. පDA Reject/Declined q. පJuvenile released to parent, no prosecuƟon

g. පDA Reject,S returned to Dept. of CorrecƟons r. පCase reassigned

h. පS servingƟme for another oīense s. පPending forensic tesƟng

i. පSuspect not available by another city or state t. පUnknown

j. පFelony Įled, warrant obtained, adult S, u. පNot Applicable/Not Cleared Other (AO)

k. පMissing Person v. පBlank

If ExcepƟonal Means or Unfounded reason:

__________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 1of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________ 

Page 149
________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

UML STUDY ID #_________________________

3) If case was closed, what date was it closed? Month ____Day____Year_______පNot Applicable

4) If unfounded, what reason was given? (UNFOUNDREASON) orපNot Applicable

________________________________________________________________________________________________

5) If invesƟgaƟon is open/conƟnuing, what is the reason? (ICREASON)orපNot Applicable

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE

6) Evidence collected(Check if yes) VICTIMALL SUSPECTSSCENEOTHER

a. Blood/Bloodstains (EVDBLOOD)

b. Saliva

c. Skin (EVDSKIN)

d. Semen (EVDSEMEN)

e. Hair (EVDHAIR)

f. Clothing (EVDCLOTHESBEDDING)

g. Sexual paraphernalia/condoms

h. Bedding (EVDCLOTHESBEDDING)

i. Other household items

j. Receipts

k. Phone calls/info

l. Text message/chats/social media

m. Computers

n. GPS tracking

o. Other electronic (specify)

p. Photos from cell phones

q. Photos of scene

r. Photos of assault

s. Photos of injury

t. WriƩen or verbal statement

u. Video statement

v. Video surveillance

w. Video of scene (post)

x. Video of assault

y. Video of other (specify)

z. Polygraph

aa. Business records

ab. Other (specify)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 2of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________ 

Page 150
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

7) Was DNA Evidence:

a. SubmiƩed for tesƟng?(DNASUBMIT) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNA

b. Match suspect(s) in the database?(DNAHIT) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNA

PART 2 ABOUT THE INCIDENT REPORT

P=Police/Law Enforcement

8) Who made Įrst report to police?___________________________

9) Date of Įrst report to P:_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _Time: _ _:_ _(Use militaryƟme)

10) Who reported the incident to P (not only Įrst report)? (WHOREPORTEDLE)(Check All That Apply)

a. පVicƟm h. පFriend —AdultJuvenile(circle one)

b. පParent i. පHospital or medical personnel

c. පOther family j. පStranger

d. පNeighbor k. පTherapist/counselor/teacher

e. පPolice (Other jurisdicƟon) l. පOther vicƟm

f. පOther public safety oĸcer m. පOther ______________________

g. පSpouse/boyfriend/partner n. පUnknown others

11) If this vicƟm was not the Įrst reporter, what was the date andƟme of vicƟm report to P? (DATEREPORT)

_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _Time: _ _:_ _

12) Date andƟme incident began (BEGDATEY,BEGDATEM ):Date:_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ පUnknown

Time: _ _:_ _ ප Unknown

13) Date incident ended (ENDDATEY, ENDDATEM,): Date:_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _පUnknown

Time: _ _:_ _පUnknown

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 3of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________ 

Page 151
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

14)To whom did this vicƟm Įrst disclose the incident? (WHOVREVORTED) (Check Only One)

a.පParent g.පFriend—AdultJuvenile(circle one)

b.පOther family h.පHospital or medical personnel

c.පNeighbor i.පStranger

d.පPolice j.පTherapist/counselor/teacher

e.පOther public safety oĸcer k.පOther________________

f.පSpouse/boyfriend/partner l.පUnknown

15)Was any suspect(s) arrested at anyƟme?  1.පYes2.පNo

16)Dates arrest was made (S1ARREST , DATES1ARRESTM, DATES1ARRESTY):_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _Time: _ _:_ _

**(If mulƟple perpetrator (s), Įll out green MulƟple Oīender Form)පNot Applicable

17) Was any S (S=Suspect) taken into custody due to warrant unrelated to present case? 

1.පYes2.පNo

18a)First P responder gender (IOGENDER): පM පFපUnknown

18b)Gender of any other law enforcement personnel: Any male: 1.පYes2.පNo

        Any female: 1.පYes2.පNo

19)Did this vicƟm request a female police oĸcer? (FEMALEPO) 1.පYes2.පNo

20)What are the total number of charges listed on the report? (REORTCRIMETOT) _______ ORපUnknown

21)Crimes reported (recorded by P):(Any Suspect)

a. Against alleged sex assault vicƟm

1.________________________________________________________________________________

2.________________________________________________________________________________

3.________________________________________________________________________________

4.________________________________________________________________________________

Other (list) _________________________________________________________________________

b. Against any other vicƟm (nonͲsex assault vicƟm)

1.________________________________________________________________________________

2.________________________________________________________________________________

3.________________________________________________________________________________

Other (list)_________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 4of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________ 

Page 152
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

22)Did this vicƟm remember locaƟon of Įrst sex act?  1.පYes2.පNoපUnknown

23)Where did the locaƟon of the crime (sex act) begin?

(Star * primary and check all others that apply) (PREMISE)

a.පAir/bus/train terminal n.පHotel/Motel

b.පBank/Savings and Loan o.පJail/Prison

c.පBar/Nightclub p.පLake/Waterway

d.පChurch/Synagogue/Temple q.පLiquor Store

e.පCommercial/Oĸce Building r.පParking Lot/Garage

f.පConstrucƟon Site s.පRental Storage/Facility

g.පConvenience Store t.පResidence/Home (specify V; S or O)

h.පDepartment/discount Store u.පRestaurant

i.පDrug Store/Doctors Oĸce/ Hospital v.පSchool/CollegeපDormපFraternity House

j.පField/Woods w.පService/Gas StaƟon

k.පGovernment/Public Building x.පSpecialty Store (TV, Fur, Etc.)

l.පGrocery/Supermarket y.පAutomobile

m.පHighway/Road/Alley z.පOther

zz.පUnknown other locaƟons

24)Did the crime end at the same locaƟon?  1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

25)If No, where did the crime end? ______________________________පNot Applicable

26) Check all weapons(if any) reported to have been used in the crime.

(Include brandishing or actual use)(WEAPON, WEAP, SUBVERBAL)

a.පFirearm (type not stated) l.පPersonal Weapons (bodily force, e.g. hands,

feet, teeth, etc.)

b.පFirearm (type not stated) automaƟc m.පPoison (include gas as in code 85

asphyxiaƟon)

c.පHandgun n.පExplosives

d.පHandgun, automaƟc o.පFire/Incendiary Device

e.පRiŇe p.පDrugs/NarcoƟcs/Sleeping Pills

g.පRiŇe, automaƟc q.පAsphyxiaƟon (by drowning, strangulaƟon,

suīocaƟon, gas, etc.)

h.පShotgun r.පVerbal threats

i.පBlunt object s.පS tampered with alcoholic drink

j.පKnife/Cuƫng Instrument (ice pick,

screwdriver, ax, etc.)

t.පOther ___________

k.පMotor Vehicle u.පUnknown (no to all others)

v.පNone—no weapon/coercion

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 5of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________ 

Page 153
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

27)(V,S, P)In this incident,what was the iniƟal contact with this vicƟm? (Write in 1st event and check all that apply)

(APPROACH) First event (Specify) :____________________________________

a.පImmediate AƩack l.පStranger posed as service person or solicitor

b.පAƩack while vicƟm asleep/passed out m.පOīered Drugs

c.පBegan as another crime n.පSuspect asked for ride

d.පMet in bar or other social situaƟon o.පSuspect oīered ride

e.පOīered Money or Something Else p.පSuspect forced vicƟm into car

f.පSuspect oīered or asked for assistance q.පElectronic contact

g.පConsensual sexual contact r.පDomesƟc Violence physical abuse

h.පAcquaintance s.පDeceit

i.පOn a date t.පAgreed to meet for other purpose

Specify ________________________

j.පProposiƟons vicƟm for sex u.පOther

k.පSuspect caring or/guardian of vicƟm v.පUnknown

28) Per account of this vicƟm or any suspect/other immediately prior to the incident, did the vicƟm:

        CHECK IF YES: VSOther

a.Walk alone late at night?(R1WALKALONE)

b.Accept a ride from a stranger? (R2RIDE)

c.Go willingly to the suspect’s residence? (R3SRESIDENCE)

d.Go willingly to meet suspect

e.Go to a bar alone?(R5BARALONE)

f.Go to a place where drugs are sold? (R6DRUGAREA)

g.Go to a place where alcohol was served?

h.Drink alcohol? (R7ALCOHOL)

i. Appear drunk?(R8DRUNK)

j.Use illegal drugs? (R9DRUGS)

k. Pass out on drugs used?

l.Pass out but not on drugs?(R10VPASSEDOUT)

m.Pass out on alcohol?

n.Invite the suspect to residence?

o.Other ______________________________________

29)(V, S, P) Immediately prior to the incident, did any suspect:

CHECK IF YES: VSOther

a.Go to a bar alone?(R5BARALONE)

b.Drink alcohol? (R7ALCOHOL; S1ALCOHOL)

c.Go to a place where alcohol was served?

d. Appear drunk?(R8DRUNK; S1DRUNK)

e. Use illegal drugs? (R9DRUGS; S1DRUGS)

f.Engage in a Įght or disorderly conduct?

g. Other _________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 6of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________ 

Page 154
33)(V)Total number of separate sex acts completed:____________පUnknown

UML STUDY ID #_________________________

30)(V, S, P)Did any suspect use misogynisƟc language during the incident?(MISOGYNISTLANG, PHYSVIOLRAPE )

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown) Specify_________________________________________

31)(V)According to this vicƟm did the assault involve:

(Check all that apply)

a.Vaginal penetraƟon by penis?(VAGINA1) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

b.Vaginal penetration by finger?(VAGINA2) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

c.Vaginal penetration by object ? (VAGINA3) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

d.Anal penetration by penis? (ANUS1) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

e.Anal penetration by finger? (ANUS2) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

f.Anal penetration by object? (ANUS3) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

g.Oral copulation of victim’s genitals by suspect? (ORAL1) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

h.Oral copulation of suspect’s genitals by victim? (ORAL2) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

i.Oral copulation of victim’s anus by suspect? (ORAL3) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

j.Oral copulation of suspect’s anus by victim? (ORAL4) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

k.Licking by S? (OTHERACT1) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

l.Kissing by S? (OTHERACT2) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

n.Biting by S? (OTHERACT4) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

o.Fondling of victim’s breast, buttocks or genitals by

suspect? (OTHERACT5) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

p. Ejaculation by suspect? (S1EJACULATE) 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

q. MasturbaƟon by S? 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

r.S demanding V perform sex acts on self r other person? 1.පYes2.පNo3.පAƩemptedපV no recall

s.Other—Specify

32)(V)Total number of separate sexual assault episodes reported in this case:____________පUnknown

34)(V, S, P)Did any suspect use a condom?(S1CONDOM)

1.පYes2.පNo3.පVicƟm Unsure4.පNo males involvedපNot applicableප(99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 7of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________ 

Page 155
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

35)What were the vicƟm’s injuries reported during the assault? (Check all that apply)

INJURY, INJBRUISES, INJCUTS, INJSTAB, INJGUNSHOT,INJINTERNAL, INJBURN, INJGENITALS, INJBITES, INͲ

JCHOKE MARKS, INJNONE, INJUNK



A)VICTIM REPORTS INJURY B)POLICE OR HOSPITAL NOTE INJURY

a.පBlack eye q.පBlack eye

b.පTwisted or sprained joint r.පTwisted or sprained joint

c.පBroken arm, leg, rib or other broken bone s.පBroken arm, leg, rib or other broken bone

d.පBroken Įnger or toe t.පBroken Įnger or toe

e.පInternal bleeding u.පInternal bleeding

f.පCuts v.පCuts/minor

g.පGunshot wounds w.පCuts/needing sƟches

h.පBite marks x.පGunshot wounds

i.පBruises y.පBite marks

j.පFat lip or chip or loss of tooth z.පBruises

k.පInjury to genital area aa.පFat lip or chip or loss of tooth

l.පStab wounds ab.පInjury to genitals/anogenital

m.පBurn injuries ac.පStab wounds

n.පStrangulaƟon/choking injury ad.පBurn injuries

o.පOther (specify) ____________________ ae.පStrangulaƟon marks or injury

p.පNo knowninjuries af.පUnknown

ag.පOther (specify) ____________________

ah.පNo known visible injuries



z.

36)Was this vicƟm seen at a hospital?1.පYes2.පNo—(if No/Never ), skip to QuesƟon 42)

37)How did this vicƟm arrive at the 1st hospital?

1.පOn own or with friend/relaƟve2.පTransported by police/ambulanceප(99=unknown)

38)Was a Rape Kit/MLE collected?1.පYes2.පNo

39) AŌer the assault, was there a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)exam?(SARTEXAM)

1.පYes2.පNo3.ප(Refused)

40)Did the vicƟm decline medical treatment?(VDECLINEDMEDTX)

1.පYes2.පNo

41)Did the hospital collect photos of any vicƟm injuries? (PHOTOS)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 8of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________ 

Page 156
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

42) Did P get photos of vicƟm’s injuries from hospital or on own?

1.පYes2.පNoපNot Applicable

43) Did this vicƟm make a P iniƟated pretextual phone call to suspect?(PRETEXTUAL)

1.පYes2.පNo

44) If yes, what was the outcome? (Check all that apply)(PRETEXTRESULTS)

a. පS did not incriminate himself/ feared being recorded/refused to speak with vicƟm

b. පS apologized but did not admit to his role in the crime

c. පS apologized and admiƩed to his role in the crime

d. පS admiƩed his role in the crime

e. පS admiƩed to having sexual relaƟons but denied rape

f. පUnknown

45) Did P interview suspect1 (S1)?(S1TALK)

1.පYes2.පNoපNot Applicable

46) Did the police: (Any suspect)

a. Conduct a photo lineup?(PHOTOID)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

——If yes, did the vicƟm idenƟfy a photo of the suspect?(SPHOTOID)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot Applicable

b. Conduct an inͲperson lineup?(LINEUP)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Conduct a Įeld show up?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

——If yes to either b. or c., did the vicƟm idenƟfy the suspect?(SLINEUP)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot Applicable

d. Get a search warrant for any evidence?(SWARRANT)

1.පYes 2.පNoප(99=unknown)

e. Conduct a search of other locaƟons involved in the incident? (i.e., neighborhood, car, etc.)

1.පYesSpecify: ______________________

2. පNo

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 9of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________ 

Page 157
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

PART 3 VICTIM, WITNESSES AND SUSPECT

sŝĐ͘ ŵ

47) What are the total number of vicƟms? (NUMVICTIMS)

_________ ප (99=unknown)

48) Sex of VicƟm 1.පFemale2.පMale

49) What was the age of this vicƟm (at theƟme of the incident? (V1AGE) _________

(Calculate age atƟme of incident in years)

50) Weight of V _____lbs.

51) (P)Was the vicƟm disabled?

ප YesපNoප(99=unknown)

List or describe the disability:____________________

52) What is the vicƟm’s race? (Check all that apply)(VRACE)

a. පWhite d. පAsian/PaciĮc Islander: Specify ________

b. පBlack e. පOther: Specify ____________

c. පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve f. පUnknown

53) What is the ethnicity of the vicƟm? (Check all that apply)

a. පEuropeanAmerican/White h. පOther Asian/American:specify _________

b. පAfrican American i. පHaiƟan

c. පHispanic Origin j. පCape Verdean

d. පNot Hispanic k. පDominican

e. පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve l. පBrazilian

f. පEastern Indian m. පOther___________________________

g. පPaciĮc Islander: Specify ________ n. පUnknown/none speciĮed

54) Does the vicƟm speak English? ප YesපNo

ESL ප YesපNo

ASL පYesපNo

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 10of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 158
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

55)Does the vicƟm reside in the city/jurisdicƟon in which the crime was reported? (VRES)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

56)VicƟm residence status atƟme of incident (check all that apply):

a.පalone e.පon college campus/in dormitory

b.පwith one or more suspect f.පwith roommates in apt/house/condo/mobile home

c.පwith spouse or partner g.පother (specify) ________________________

d.පwith family h.පunknown

57)(P) Is there any notaƟon that this vicƟm is not a U.S. ciƟzen?1.පYes2.පNo

58)(P) ImmigraƟon status of the vicƟm noted:

a.පTemporary stay—VISA e.පRefugee

b.පImmigrant VISA f.පAsylee

c.පPermanent Resident Alien g.පOther, please specify _________

d.පTemporary Protected Status h.පNot Applicable

59)What is the marital status of this vicƟm?(VMarital)

a.පSingle d.පDivorced

b.පMarried e.පUnknown

c.පSeparated

60)(P)Did police do a criminal record check of this vicƟm? 1.පYes2.පNo

61)Did the police, vicƟm, suspect or other indicate that this vicƟm:

    Check each column if yes: PVSO

a.Had a paƩern of alcohol use? (C2PATERNALCOHOL)

b.Had a paƩern of drug use? (C3PATTERNDRUGS)

c.Worked as a stripper or masseuse? (C4DISREPJOB)

d.Worked as a prosƟtute? (CSPROSTITUTE)

e.Had a criminal record? (C6CRIMEREC)

f.Appeared to have mental health issues? (C7MENTAL)

g.Had a gang aĸliaƟon? (C8VGANG)

hHad previous sexual vicƟmizaƟon history

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 11of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________

Page 159
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

tŝƚŶĞƐƐĞƐ

62) (P)As idenƟĮed by police, how many people (not including this vicƟm and suspect(s)witnessed the

incident (iniƟal contact to immediate outcry)?(WITNUM)

_________known witness(es)ORප(99=unknown)

_________How many witness(es) were vicƟms?

63) Witness 1 (record eyewitness Įrst):(if applicable)

a. Was witness 1 an eyewitness?(EYEWIT1)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

b. Did the police interview witness 1? (INTERVIEWWITS1)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

64) What is the relaƟonship between witness 1 and this vicƟm?(TYPEWI1)

Witness is:

a. පParent h. පHospital or medical personnel

b. පOther family i. පStranger

c. පNeighbor j. පTherapist/counselor/teacher

d. පPolice k. පFriend or relaƟve of S

e. පOther public safety oĸcer l. පOther __________________

f. පSpouse/boyfriend/partner m. පUnknown relaƟonship

g. පFriend n. පNot applicable

65) Witness 2:(if applicable)

a. Was witness 2 an eyewitness?(EYEWIT2)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

b. Did the police interview witness 2? (INTERVIEWWITS2)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 12of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 160
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

66) What is the relaƟonship between Witness 2 and this vicƟm?(TYPEWI2)

Witness is:

a. පParent h. පHospital or medical personnel

b. පOther family i. පStranger

c. පNeighbor j. පTherapist/counselor/teacher

d. පPolice k. පFriend or relaƟve of S

e. පOther public safety oĸcer l. පOther __________________

f. පSpouse/boyfriend/partner m. පUnknown relaƟonship

g. පFriend n. පNot applicable

67) Witness 3:(if applicable)

a. Was witness 3 an eyewitness?(EYEWIT3)

1. Yes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

b. Did the police interview witness 3? (INTERVIEWWITS3)

1. Yes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

68) What is the relaƟonship between Witness 3 and this vicƟm?(TYPEWI3)

Witness is:

a. පParent h. පHospital or medical personnel

b. පOther family i. පStranger

c. පNeighbor j. පTherapist/counselor/teacher

d. පPolice k. පFriend or relaƟve of S

e. පOther public safety oĸcer l. පOther __________________

f. පSpouse/boyfriend/partner m. පUnknown relaƟonship

g. පFriend n. පNot applicable

69) Does any witness:

a. Corroborate this vicƟms story? (CORROBORATEV)

1. පYes

b.

2. පIn part SpecifyපCircumstancesපIn regard to sex acts

3. පNoප(99=unknown)ප(no witnesses)

Corroborate the suspect’s story? (CORROBORATES)

1. පYes

2. පIn partපIn regard to consent

3. පNoප(99=unknown)ප(no witnesses) ප(no suspect idenƟĮed)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 13of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 161
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

^ƵƐƉĞĐƚ

70)Did suspect1 reside in the city/jurisdicƟon?   1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

71)What are the total number of suspects? (NUMSUSECTS)

_____(If more than one suspect, use green form)ORප(99=unknown)

72)What is the sex of suspect 1: 1.පFemale2.පMale

73)What is the age of suspect1? (S1AGE): _____ORප(99=unknown)

74)What is the weight in pounds of the suspect1? (S1WEIGHT)  _____ORප(99=unknown)

75) What is height of thesuspect?(Convert to inches)_______ORප(99=unknown)

76)What is the suspect’s race?(Check all that apply)(S1RACE) 

a.පWhite d.පAsian/PaciĮc Islander: Specify ________

b.පBlack e.පOther: Specify ____________

c.පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve f.පUnknown

77)What is the ethnicity of the suspect?

a.පEuropeanAmerican/White h.පOther Asian:specify _________

b.පAfrican American i.පHaiƟan

c.පHispanic Origin j.පCape Verdean

d.පNot Hispanic k.පDominican

e.පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve l.පBrazilian

f.පEastern Indian m.පOther___________________________

g.පPaciĮc Islander: Specify ________ n.පUnknown/none speciĮed

78)Does the suspect speak English?  පYesපNo

     ESL පYesපNo

     ASL පYesපNo

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 14of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________

Page 162
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

79) Suspectresidence status atƟme of incident (check all that apply) (S1RES)

a. පalone e. පon college campus/in dormitory

b. පwith one or more suspect f. පwith roommates in apt/house/condo/mobile home

c. පwith spouse or partner g. පother (specify) ______________________________

d. පwith family g. පunknown

80) (P) Is there any notaƟon that the suspect is not a U.S. ciƟzen?1.පYes2.පNo

81) (P)ImmigraƟon status of the suspect noted:

a. පTemporary stay—VISA e. පRefugee

b. පImmigrant VISA f. පAsylee

c. පPermanent Resident Alien g. පOther, please specify _________

d. පTemporary Protected Status h. පNot Applicable

82) What is the marital status of the suspect atƟme of incident?(S1Marital)

a. පSingle d. පDivorced

b. පMarried e. පUnknown

c. පSeparated

83) Does the suspect have a disability?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

If yes, specify: ______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

84) (P, S. V)Is the suspect in a gang?(S1GANG)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

85) (P, S, V)Were there gangͲrelated dimensions to the assault? 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

If yes, specify:_____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

86) Did the vicƟm have recall of who commiƩed the sexual assault?

1.පYes memory 2. පNo memory

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 15of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 163
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

87) Was the suspect idenƟĮed by the vicƟm in any way?(S1ID)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Specify below (check all that apply)

a. පNo physical descripƟon e. පAddress of suspect

b. පPhysical descripƟon f. පLine up

c. පParƟal name/nickname g. පField show

d. පFull name h. පOther (specify) ______________

88) Was there a statement made by the alleged suspect?

1.පYes2.පNo

89) Was there a confession by the alleged suspect?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

90) What was the suspect’s defense/explanaƟon for allegaƟons? (Check all that apply)(S1DEFENSE)

a. පIncorrect ID e. පOther _________________

b. පIncident fabricated f. පNo explanaƟon

c. පVicƟm consented g. පUnknown

d. පConsent of prosƟtute ප NA (suspect not interviewed/no statement)

91) Did the suspect’s story to the police change overƟme?(S1INCONSISTENT)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable (no story given)

If Yes, add detail:________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

92) Was the suspect’s story inconsistent with the vicƟm’s report?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable (no story given)පVicƟm did not remember assault

If Yes, add detail:________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 16of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 164
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

93) Was the suspect1s account inconsistent with that of other suspect(s)?

1.පYes

2. පNoප(99=unknown)පNA (no story given)

3. පNo other suspects

If yes, add detail:_________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

94) Did the police do a criminal record check of suspect? 1.පYes2.පNoපNot applicable

95) What was the number of suspect’s prior warrants or arrests?(S1ARRESTS)

1.ප0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

96) What was the number of suspect’s prior convicƟons?(S1CONVCTNS)

1.ප0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

97) Was the suspect:

a. Ever incarcerated (for a previous oīense?(S1INCAR) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Under the control of the CJ system?(S1CONTROL) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

98) Per police Įle informaƟon, does the suspect have a prior record of sex oīenses/arrests? (S1PRIORSEXOFF)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

99) If yes, Check all that applyͲre: sex oīense:

a. පPrior arrest(s)

b. පPrior convicƟon(s)

c. පPrior incarceraƟon

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 17of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 165
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

100) What was the relaƟonship between vicƟm and suspect1? (Check all that apply)(S1RELATIONSHIP)

a. පVicƟm was current spouse k. පVicƟm was stranger/did not know suspect

b. පVicƟm was common law spouse l. පVicƟm was acquaintance (more than 1 day)

c. පVicƟm was exͲspouse m.පVicƟm was acquaintance/casual encounter

(same day)

d. පVicƟm was parent n. පVicƟm was friend

e. පVicƟm was sibling o. පVicƟm was neighbor

f. පVicƟm was other family member p. පVicƟm was boyfriend/girlfriend

g. පVicƟm was roommate q. පVicƟm was employer

h. පVicƟm was exͲboyfriend/girlfriend r. පVicƟm was employee

i. පVicƟm was student/paƟent/client s. පVicƟm was coͲworker

j. පVicƟm was domesƟc partner t. පRelaƟonship unknown/ no suspect

101) What was the length of the relaƟonship between vicƟm and suspect?(S1RELENGTH)

________ number of days (calculated est.) ප(9999=unknown)ප(9666=no relaƟonship)

102) (P)Does the Įle indicate that any suspect and vicƟm:

a. Have children together?(S1KIDS) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Have a prior sexual relaƟonship?(SPRIORSEX) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

103) Did the suspect:

a. Previously sexually assault the vicƟm?(S1PRIORSAV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Previously physically assault the vicƟm? (S1PRIORDDV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Previously stalk the vicƟm? (S1PRIORSTAKV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

104) Did the police interview this vicƟm?

1.පYes 2.පNo ප (99=unknown)

105) Number of P interviews with vicƟm (VICINTERVIEWS)#_______

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 18of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 166
__________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

UML STUDY ID #_________________________

106) AŌer the incident, note if at anyƟme the vicƟm:

a. Could not be located by the police(VICLOCATE) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Moved to another residence(VREOCATE) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Recanted tesƟmony(VICRECANT) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

d. Gave inconsistent tesƟmony/account in part or whole

(VICINCONSISTENT) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

e. Did not want the suspect arrested(VICNOARREST) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

f. Did not want to pursue case/follow through 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

g. Did not want to follow through due to embarrassment (VICEMBARASS) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

h. Did not want to follow through due to fear(VICFEAR) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

i. Did not want to follow through due to privacy (VICPRIVACY) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

j. Provided incomplete informaƟon and then added more detail 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

k. Said her memory had changed 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

l. Say she lied and incident did not occur 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

107) According to the police, did the vicƟm cooperate with authoriƟes

a. At theƟme of report?(COOPERATE1) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. At theƟme of invesƟgaƟon?(COOPERATE2) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. AŌer the arrest?(COOPERATE3) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

108) If no to any part of QuesƟon 107, please describe(VRTPREASON2)

__________________________________________________________________________

109) Did the invesƟgaƟng oĸcer indicate or specifyany issues with this vicƟms credibility?(VCREDIBILITY)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Please describe quote or note key words:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

110) Did the invesƟgaƟng oĸcer believe/suggest that the vicƟm had a reason/moƟve to lie?(VMOTIVE)

1.පYes 2.පNoප(99=unknown) If yes, please describe:

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 19of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 167
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

111)Wassuspect1 injured during the assault? (Check all that apply)(S1INJURY)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

If yes, specify:

a.පBlack eye f.පBroken Įnger or toe

b.පTwisted or sprained joint g.පFat lip or chip or loss of tooth

c.පBroken arm, leg, rib or other broken bone h.පInjury to genital area

d.පInternalbleeding i.පBite mark

e.පBruise j.පOther(Specify) ________________

112)Was vicƟm taken to a safe place by authoriƟes post report?

1.පYes2.පNoපRefusedප(99=unknown)

113)Were children present at theƟme of the incident(s)?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

114)(V)Did suspect1 use any of the tacƟcs listed below? (SUBUNK)

a.Use verbal coercion? (SUBVEBAL) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

b. Supply drugs to the vicƟm (SUBSUPPLY) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

c.Drug the vicƟm? (SUBDRUGGED) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

d.Threaten the vicƟm with a weapon? (SUBTHREATWEAP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

e.Threaten to harm the vicƟm or someone else? (SUBTHREATHARM) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

f.Display or use a weapon? (SUBDISPWEAP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

g.Use roughness (kick, slap, physically restrain vicƟm)? (SUBROUGH) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

h.Beat the vicƟm with hands? (SUBBEATHANDS) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

i.Beat the vicƟm with an object? (SUBBEATOBJECT) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

j.Tie up the vicƟm? (SUBTIEUP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

k.Hold down the vicƟm? (SUBHELDSUSP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

l.Allowed others to hold down the vicƟm? (SUBHELDOTHERS) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

m.Choke the vicƟm? (SUBCHOKE) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

n. Fondled the vicƟm without subduing? (SUBNONE)? 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

o.Other ___________________________________________________ 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 20of 27revised 6/10/2014Date: ______________

Page 168
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

115) Were there reports of threats made at theƟme of the incident against this vicƟm by suspect(s)?

(THREATSCOERCION)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown) පNot applicable, vicƟm passed out

If yes, what types of threats were made?

a. පSuspect threatens to kill vicƟm or vicƟm’sfamily e. පThreatens to harm vicƟm's family

b. පSuspect uses authority (teacher, employer)

nonͲphysically injurious consequence

deportaƟon, take children to threaten vicƟm)

f. පMisogynist (says vicƟm deserves and/or wants

the assault/tells vicƟm to relax, let it happen/calls

vicƟm slut, whore, etc.)

c. පSuspect implies future harm g. පVicƟm was not threatened/coerced

d. පSuspect threatens to harm vicƟm

116) Did the vicƟm use any of the tacƟcs below with any suspect?(Check all that apply)

a. Not respond because gagged, drugged or asleep

(VERBIMPOSS, PHYIMPOSS) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Cry? (VERBCRY) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Scream? (VERBSCREAM) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

d. Refuse, protest or say stop? (VERBSTOP) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

e. AƩempt to fool or dissuade the suspect? (VERBFOOL) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

f. Say nothing? (VERBPASSIVE) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

g. AƩempt to Ňee or Ňed? (PHYFLED) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

h. Resist or struggle? (PHYRESIST) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

i. Physically Įght (e.g., hit, punch)? (PHYFIGHT) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

j. Not physically respond? (Other than when (a.) is yes 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

k. Use a weapon in selfͲdefense? (PHYWEAPON) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 21of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 169
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

117) (V)AŌer the assault, the suspect1:(Check all that apply)(SPOSTASSAULT)

a. පApologizes/begs forgiveness h. පApprehended by police

b. පPasses out from inebriaƟon i. පLeaves per vicƟms demand

c. පThreatens vicƟm with retaliaƟon j. පActs normal

d. පApprehended by ciƟzen k. පInvites or permits others to assault vicƟm

e. පHolds vicƟm hostage l. පOther ________________

f. පGoes to sleep m. පUnknown—vicƟm Ňees

g. පFlees the scene n. පUnknown—Other ________________

118) At anyƟme post report is there a record that suspect1 threatened this vicƟm?

1.පYes2.පNoපN/A(No suspect)

PART 4 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

119) Was this incident in the context of domesƟc violence?(DV)

1.පYes2.පNo—skip to QuesƟon 123ප(99=unknown)

120) Was there a domesƟc violence supplement?(DVSUPPLEMENT) 1.පYes2.පNo

121) Was there a restraining order in place at theƟme of the incident? (RO) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

122) If this was in context of domesƟc violence, how did suspect approach vicƟm? (DVAPROACH)

a. පSuspect stalks vicƟm e. පSuspect demands sex

b. පSuspect shows up unannounced f. පOther (Specify) _____________

c. පVicƟm asleep g. පNot Applicable

d. පSuspect aƩempts reconciliaƟon

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 22of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 170
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

123) Prior to the incident (even if not an "oĸcial" DV case):

a. Did the vicƟm break up with the suspect? (DVMOTIVE1) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Did the suspect break up with vicƟm?(DVMOTIVE2) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Did the suspect accuse the vicƟm of inĮdelity (DVMOTIVE3) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

d. Did the vicƟm accuse the suspect of inĮdelity? (DVMOTIVE4) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

e. Was there a conŇict over children?(DVMOTIVE5) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

f. Was there aconŇict over money? (DVMOTIVE6) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

g. Was there a conŇict over sex?(DVMOTIVE7) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

124) Was an order of protecƟon issued at/aŌer report to authoriƟes?

1.පYes2.පNo

PART 5 ARREST

125) Was the case for this vicƟm against any suspect referred to DA for consultaƟon?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot Applicable

126) Was this before or aŌer an arrest was made?

1.පBefore 2. පAŌerපNot Applicable

127) What was the outcome of the DA consultaƟon?

Please add addiƟonal details and speciĮc statements below:

a. පDeclined e. පVicƟm refuses to prosecute

b. පAsked police to gather addiƟonal informaƟon/

evidence f. පUnfounded

c. පAdvised police proceed with case/ charges/

arrest. g. පNA (no consultaƟon)

d. පJuvenile suspect, case consultaƟon planned h. පOther

Details:_______________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 23of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 171
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

128) Has an arrest of at least one suspect been made?

1.පYes2.පNoප (99=unknown)

129) Suspect arrest chargesͲorපNot applicable

a. Most serious charge for crime against vicƟm (S1ACRIME1):____________________________________________

b. Second Charge(S1ACRIME2):__________________________________________________________________

c. Third Charge(S1ACRIME3): _________________________________________________________________

d. Fourth Charge (S1ACRIME4): _________________________________________________________________

e. Other Charges related to other nonͲsex vicƟms:_____________________________________________________

130) Was bail iniƟally granted? Check one(S1BAILTYPE)

1.පYes2.පNo (Denied)ප(99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

Specify: a.පROR  b.පCash bail d.පUnknown

If cash bail, what was the amount?(S1BAIlAMOUNT)$______________පUnknown

131) Was the suspect’s case referred to the DA for charging? (S1REFERDA)

1.පYes2.පNoප (99=unknown) පNot Applicable (no suspect)

132) Did the DA Įle charges?(S1CHARGED)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown) පNot Applicable

a. If yes, what date was the suspect charged?(DATES1CHARGEDM, DATES1CHAREDY)

___/___/___

b. If no, please describe the reasons why:(S1DAREASON1; REASON1TEXTA; REASON1TEXTB)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 24of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 172
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

133) Suspect1 Charges, e.g. (In court/DA/Indictment): පNot Applicable

a. Most serious charge (S1CCRIME1): _________________________________________

b. Second Charge(S1CCRIME2): _________________________________________

c. Third Charge(S1CCRIME3): _________________________________________

d. Fourth Charge (S1CCRIME4): _________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 25of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 173
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

NOTES

 Do not include any unique idenƟfying informaƟon in these notes.

 Write quesƟons here and refer to the quesƟon number.

 Include general quesƟons here as well as decision making parƟculars that are not captured

by the form or need further aƩenƟon.

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 26of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 174
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

NOTES

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 27of 27revised 6/10/2014 Date: ______________

Page 175
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

MULTIPLE Melissa Morabito SUSPECT CODING FORM

*SUPPLEMENTAL FORM TO POLICE INCIDENT REVIEW CODING FORM

FILL OUTSEPARATE FORM FOR EACH SUSPECT

Today/CompleƟon Date: ___________

Suspect # ___

71) What is the total number of suspects? (NUMSUSECTS)______

16) Date arrest was made (SARREST , DATESARRESTM, DATESARRESTY):_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _Time: _ _:_ _

70) Did suspect reside in the city/jurisdicƟon? 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

72) What is the sex of suspect: 1.පFemale2.පMale

73) What is the age of suspect? (SAGE): _____ORප(99=unknown)

74) What is the weight in pounds of the suspect? (SWEIGHT) _____OR ප(99=unknown)

75) What is height of the suspect?(Convert to inches)_______ORප(99=unknown)

76) What is the suspect’s race?(Check all that apply)(SRACE)

a. පWhite d. පAsian/PaciĮc Islander: Specify ________

b. පBlack e. පOther: Specify ____________

c. පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve f. පUnknown

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 1of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 176
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

77) What is the ethnicity of the suspect?

a. පEuropeanAmerican/White h. පOther Asian:specify _________

b. පAfrican American i. පHaiƟan

c. පHispanic Origin j. පCape Verdean

d. පNot Hispanic k. පDominican

e. පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve l. පBrazilian

f. පEastern Indian m. පOther___________________________

g. පPaciĮc Islander: Specify ________ n. පUnknown/none speciĮed

78) Does the suspect speak English? ප YesපNo

ESL ප YesපNo

ASL පYesපNo

80) (P) Is there any notaƟon that the suspect is not a U.S. ciƟzen?1.පYes2.පNo

81) (P)ImmigraƟon status of the suspect noted:

a. පTemporary stay—VISA e. පRefugee

b. පImmigrant VISA f. පAsylee

c. පPermanent Resident Alien g. පOther, please specify _________

d. පTemporary Protected Status h. පNot Applicable

82) What is the marital status of the suspect atƟme of incident?(SMARITAL)

a. පSingle c. පSeparated

b. පMarried d. පDivorced

84) (P, S. V)Is the suspect in a gang?(SGANG)

1.පYes2.පNoප (99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 2of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 177
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

87)Was the suspect idenƟĮed by the vicƟm in any way?(SID)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Specify below (check all that apply)

45)Did P interview this suspect?(STALK)

1.පYes2.පNoපNot Applicable

88)Was there a statement made by the alleged suspect?

1.පYes2.පNo

a.පNo physical descripƟon e.පAddress of suspect

b.පPhysical descripƟon f.පLine up

c.පParƟal name/nickname g.පField show

d.පFull name h.පOther (specify) ______________

89)Was there a confession by the alleged suspect?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

90)What was the suspect’s defense/explanaƟon for allegaƟons? (Check all that apply)(SDEFENSE)

a.පIncorrect ID e.පOther _________________

b.පIncident fabricated f.පNo explanaƟon

c.පVicƟm consented g.පUnknown

d.පConsent of prosƟtute පNA (suspect not interviewed/no statement)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 3of 10revised6/10/2014Date: _________

Page 178
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

91) Did the suspect’s story to the police change overƟme?(SINCONSISTENT)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable (no story given)

If Yes, add detail:_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

92) Was the suspect’s story inconsistent with the vicƟm’s report?

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable (no story given)පVicƟm did not remember assault

If Yes, add detail:_______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

93) Was the suspect’s account inconsistent with that of other suspect(s)?

1.පYes

2. පNoප(99=unknown)පNA (no story given)

3. පNo other suspects

If yes, add detail:______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

94) Did the police do a criminal record check of suspect? 1.පYes2.පNoපNot applicable

95) What was the number of suspect’s prior warrants or arrests?(SARRESTS)

1.ප0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

96) What was the number of suspect’s prior convicƟons?

1.ප0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99=unknown) ප Not Applicable

97) Was the suspect:

a. පEver incarcerated (for a previous oīense?(S1INCAR) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. පUnder the control of the CJ system?(S1CONTROL) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

98) Per police Įle informaƟon, does the suspect have a prior record of sex oīenses/arrests? (S1PRIORSEXOFF)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 4of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 179
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

99) If yes, Check all that applyͲre: sex oīense:

a. පPrior arrest(s)

b. පPrior convicƟon(s)

c. පPrior incarceraƟon

100) What was the relaƟonship between vicƟm and suspect? (Check all that apply)(SRELATIONSHIP)

a. පVicƟm was current spouse k. පVicƟm was stranger/did not know suspect

b. පVicƟm was common law spouse l. පVicƟm was acquaintance (more than 1 day)

c. පVicƟm was exͲspouse m.පVicƟm was acquaintance (same day)

d. පVicƟm was parent n. පVicƟm was friend

e. පVicƟm was sibling o. පVicƟm was neighbor

f. පVicƟm was other family member p. පVicƟm was boyfriend/girlfriend

g. පVicƟm was roommate q. පVicƟm was employer

h. පVicƟm was exͲboyfriend/girlfriend r. පVicƟm was employee

i. පVicƟm was student/paƟent/client s. පVicƟm was coͲworker

j. පVicƟm was domesƟc partner t. පRelaƟonship unknown/ no suspect

101) What was the length of the relaƟonship between vicƟm and suspect?(SRELENGTH)

________ number of days (calculated est.) ප(9999=unknown)ප(9666=no relaƟonship)

102) (P)Does the Įle indicate that the suspect and vicƟm:

a. Have children together?(SKIDS) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Have a prior sexual relaƟonship?(SPRIORSEX) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

103) Did the suspect:

a. Previously sexually assault the vicƟm?(SPRIORSAV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

b. Previously physically assault the vicƟm? (SPRIORDDV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

c. Previously stalk the vicƟm? (SPRIORSTAKV) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 5of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 180
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

111) Was the suspect injured during the assault? (Check all that apply)(SINJURY)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

If yes, specify:

a. පBlack eye f. පBroken Įnger or toe

b. පTwisted or sprained joint g. පFat lip or chip or loss of tooth

c. පBroken arm, leg, rib or other broken bone h. පInjury to genital area

d. පInternalbleeding i. පBite mark

e. පBruise j. පOther(Specify) ________________

114) (V)Did the suspect use any of the tacƟcs listed below? (SUBUNK)

a. Use verbal coercion? (SUBVEBAL) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

b. Supply drugs to the vicƟm (SUBSUPPLY) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

c. Drug the vicƟm? (SUBDRUGGED) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

d. Threaten the vicƟm with a weapon? (SUBTHREATWEAP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

e. Threaten to harm the vicƟm or someone else? (SUBTHREATHARM) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

f. Display or use a weapon? (SUBDISPWEAP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

g. Use roughness (kick, slap, physically restrain vicƟm)? (SUBROUGH) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

h. Beat the vicƟm with hands? (SUBBEATHANDS) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

i. Beat the vicƟm with an object? (SUBBEATOBJECT) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

j. Tie up the vicƟm? (SUBTIEUP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

k. Hold down the vicƟm? (SUBHELDSUSP) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

l. Allowed others to hold down the vicƟm? (SUBHELDOTHERS) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

m. Choke the vicƟm? (SUBCHOKE) 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

n. Fondled the vicƟm without subduing? (SUBNONE)? 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

o. Other ___________________________________________________ 1.පYes2.පNoපvicƟm no recall

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 6of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 181
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

115)Were there reports of threats made at theƟme of the incident against this vicƟm by suspect?

(Check all that apply)(THREATSCOERCION)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown) පNot applicable, vicƟm passed out

If yes, what types of threats were made?

a. පSuspect threatens to kill vicƟm or vicƟm’s

family e. පThreatens to harm vicƟm's family

b. පSuspect uses authority (teacher, employer)

nonͲphysically injurious consequence

deportaƟon, take children to threaten vicƟm)

f. පMisogynist (says vicƟm deserves and/or wants

the assault/tells vicƟm to relax, let it happen/calls

vicƟm slut, whore, etc.)

c. පSuspect implies future harm

g. පVicƟm was not threatened/coerced

d. පSuspect threatens to harm vicƟm

117) (V) AŌer the assault, the suspect:(Check all that apply)(SPOSTASSAULT)

a. පApologizes/begs forgiveness h. පApprehended by police

b. පPasses out from inebriaƟon i. පLeaves per vicƟms demand

c. පThreatens vicƟm with retaliaƟon j. පActs normal

d. පApprehended by ciƟzen k. පInvites or permits others to assault vicƟm

e. පHolds vicƟm hostage l. පOther ________________

f. පGoes to sleep m. පUnknown—vicƟm Ňees

g. පFlees the scene n. පUnknown—Other ________________

118) At anyƟme post report is there a record that this suspect threatened the vicƟm?

1.පYes2.පNoපN/A(No suspect)

128) Has an arrest of this suspect been made?

1.පYes2.පNoප (99=unknown)

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 7of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 182
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

129) Suspect arrest chargesͲorපNot applicable

a. Most serious charge for crime against vicƟm (SACRIME1):____________________________________________

b. Second Charge(SACRIME2):__________________________________________________________________

c. Third Charge(SACRIME3): _________________________________________________________________

d. Fourth Charge (SACRIME4): _________________________________________________________________

e. Other Charges related to other nonͲsex vicƟms:_____________________________________________________

131) Was the suspect’s case referred to the DA for charging? (SREFERDA)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)

132) Did the DA Įle charges?(S1CHARGED)

1.පYes2.පNoප(99=unknown)පNot applicable

a. If yes, what date was the suspect charged?(DATES1CHARGEDM, DATES1CHAREDY)

___/___/___

b. If no, please describe the reasons why:(S1DAREASON1; REASON1TEXTA; REASON1TEXTB)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

133) Suspect Charges, e.g. (In court/DA/Indictment):පNot applicable

a. Most serious charge (SCCRIME1): _________________________________________

b. Second Charge(SCCRIME2): _________________________________________

c. Third Charge(SCCRIME3): _________________________________________

d. Fourth Charge (SCCRIME4): _________________________________________

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 8of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 183
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

NOTES

 Do not include any unique idenƟfying informaƟon in these notes.

 Write quesƟons here and refer to the quesƟon number.

 Include general quesƟons here as well as decision making parƟculars that are not captured

by the form or need further aƩenƟon.

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 9of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date: _________

Page 184
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

NOTES

Source: ____________Reviewer iniƟals_________Page 10of 10 revised6/10/2014 Date:

Page 185
SUSPECT ID __ __ __ ____

Case ID # __ __ __ __ For office use only  UML STUDY ID #_____________________

Project Principal Investigators: 

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Research on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S Linda Williams 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052  April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM

PART 1 ABOUT THE CASE Today’s Date:

1) What is the date of the incident (oīense date)?

2) What was the date of arrest: ප Not in file

3) Was the Defendant arraigned/indicted? 1.ප Yes2. ප Noප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

4) Total # of different oīenses at arraignment: _______ප (99=not in file)

5) List all oīense codes(see below) and number of counts:

(circle one)

Oīense Code 1: Oīense 1 # of counts: FelonyMisdemeanorUNK

Oīense Code 2: Oīense 2 # of counts: FelonyMisdemeanorUNK

Oīense Code 3: Oīense 3 # of counts: FelonyMisdemeanorUNK

Oīense Code 4: Oīense 4 # of counts: FelonyMisdemeanorUNK

*Oīense Codes: 1. Murder 6. Burglary 11. Other Property 16. Other Public Order

2. Rape 7. Larceny Theft 12. Drug Traĸcking 17. Other

3. Robbery 8. MV Theft 13. Other Drug 99. Don’t Know

4. Assault 9. Forgery 14. Weapons

5. Other Violent (specify) 10. Fraud 15. Driving Related

6) Other Charges:Specify

PART 2 OFFENDER HISTORY

7) What was the number of suspect’s prior arrests? (S1ARRESTS)

1.ප 0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99=not in file)

8) What was the number of suspect’s prior convictions? (S1CONVCTNS)

1.ප 0 2. ප1 3. පMore than 1 ප (99= not in file) ප Not Applicable (Q7=no)

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 1 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 186
UML STUDY ID____________________

CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont.

9) Was the suspect:

a. ප Previously incarcerated? (S1INCAR) 1.පYes 2.පNo ප(99=not in file)

b. ප Under the control of the CJ system? (S1CONTROL) 1.පYes 2.පNo ප(99=not in file)

10) Does the suspect have a prior record of sex oīenses? (Check all that apply) (S1PRIORSEXOFF)

1.පYes 2.පNo ප(99=not in file)

11) Check all that apply:

a. ප Prior arrest(s) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=not in file) ප (NA, 10=no)

b. ප Prior conviction(s) 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=not in file) ප (NA, 10=no)

c. ප Prior incarceration 1.පYes2.පNoප(99=not in file) ප (NA, 10=no)

PART 3 COURT DETAILS

12) Type of attorney at initial appearance:

a. පPublic Defender d. පNot in file

b. පCourt Appointed e. පOther (write in)

c. ප Privately Retained f. පNone

13) Was the Defendant on probation or parole at the time of incident?

1.පYes 2. පNo ප(99=not in file)

14) Was Defendant everreleased before adjudication?

1.පYes 2. පNo ප(99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

Page 187
CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID# _________________

15) Type of Release (check all that apply)

a. පROR d. ප Property Bail g. පNot Applicable

b. පConditional Release e. ප Other Financial h. පOther

c. ප Cash Bail f. ප Unknown Financial i. පUnknown

16) Identify Release conditions and violations(if any) while awaiting trial:

Condition of Release Condition Violations

Outcome

1. Warrant 96. Not Applicable

2. Apprehended99. Not in file

3. Incarcerated

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

17) Were conditions of bail reduced?

1.පYes 2. පNo ප(99=not in file)

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 3 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 188
CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID ______________________

PART 4 ADJUDICATION DETAILS

18a) Was a grand jury held for any charges? 1.ප Yes 2. ප Noප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

18b)Was a grand jury held for any ƐĞdžƵĂů ĂƐƐĂƵůƚ charges? 1.ප Yes 2. ප Noප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

19a) Were there any pretrial hearings held for any charges?1.ප Yes 2. ප Noප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

19b)Were there any pretrial hearings held for any ƐĞdžƵĂů ĂƐƐĂƵůƚ charges?  1.ප Yes 2. ප Noප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

If yes, what is the reason(s) and decision(s)

Reason Decision

a.

b.

c.

d.

20) Did the defendant fail to make any court appearances? 1.පYes 2. පNoප (99=not in file)

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 4 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 189
CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID ______________________

21a) Was there evidence from a MLE/rape kit entered as evidence?

21b) Was there DNA evidence from the MLE/rape kit?

1.පYes

1.පYes

2. පNoප (99=not in file)

2. පNoප (99=not in file)

22a) Was DNA collected from the suspect?

22b) If yes, was the DNA tested?

1.පYes

1.පYes

2. පNoප (99=not in file)

2. පNoප (99=not in file)පNA

23a) Did the DNA evidence identify the suspect?

23b) Did the DNA evidence identify any other person?

1.පYes

1.පYes

2. පNoප (99=not in file)පNA

2. පNoප (99=not in file)පNA

24) Did the case go trial? 1.පYes2. පNoප (99=not in file)

If yes, Date: ප Not in file

25) If Q24 = Yes, What type of trial? 1. පBench Trial

2. පJury Trial

ප (99=not in file)

ප NA

No question 26

Rest of page intentionally left blank

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 5 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 190
CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID__________________________

27) Adjudication date: ප Not in file

28) Adjudication charge(s): For charges that were dismissed or Nolle Pros ONLY: 

Offense F= Felony

Attempt?

Outcome

Code*

By whom? FINAL Reason (use code or write in

M= J=Judge response)

P=Prosecution 1=Lack of evidence 4=Defendant Misdemeanor

U=Unknown U=UNK deported

2=Lack of prosecution 5=Other (write in)3=Defendant died 99=Unknown

1st: F M U Yes No U J P U

2nd: F M U Yes No U J P U

3rd: F M U Yes No U J P U

4th: F M U Yes No U J P U

Explain all sexual assault charge dismissal / nolle pros:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________*Outcome codes:

1. Nolle prosequi 6. Guilty plea 11. Domestic Violence Court

2. Dismissal 7. No Contest 12. Deferred Adjudication

3. AcquittalͲJudge 8. Guilty Verdict – Judge 13. Other4. AcquittalͲJury 9. Guilty Verdict – Jury 99. Unknown/Not in file

5. Not guilty – type unknown 10. Not guilty – Jury

Page 191
CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID_____________________

No question 29)

30) Type of Attorney at Adjudication:

a. පPublic Defender d. පNot in file

b. පCourt Appointed e. පOther

c. පPrivately Retained f. පNone

31) Was there a Victim Impact Statement?

1.පYes 2. පNo ප (99=not in file)

PART 5 SENTENCE DETAILS

32) Date of Conviction 32) Date of Sentence:

ප UNK ප UNK

33) Sentence on any and all charges (check all that apply):

a. ප Prison Sentence: Imposed _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

b. ප Prison Sentence: Suspended _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

c. ප Sentence Only to Time Served _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

d. ප Jail Sentence: Imposed _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

e. ප Jail Sentence: Suspended _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

f. ප Probation: Imposed _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

g. ප Community Service _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

e. ප Treatment Counseling _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

f. ප Don’t know sentence _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

g. ප Other sentence type _____ years monthsපUNK ප Consecutive  ප ConcurrentපUNK

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 7 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 192
 

 

CRIMINAL COURT DATA COLLECTION FORM, cont. UML STUDY ID ___________________

34) Fines or Restitution:

1. පFine (Do not include court costs) $ or ප not in file ප NA

2. පState Restitution $ or ප not in file ප NA

3. ප Did the victim apply for restitution? 1. පYes2.පNoප not in file ප NA

4. පIf yes, what was the victim restitution amount? $ or ප not in file ප NA

35) Is there a stipulation regarding sex oīender registration?

1.ප Yes 2. ප Noප not in file Specify:

Source: Reviewer initials: Page 8 revised8/14/2014 DATE:

Page 193
UML STUDY ID #_________________________ "QQFOEJY#*OUFSWJFXBOE'PDVT(SPVQ1SPUPDPMT

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

/DZ(QIRUFHPHQW,QWHUYLHZ)RUP Melissa Morabito 

Today’s Date:_________

The consent form has been forwarded to the participant or provided in person and is read and reviewed 

by the participant. Any questions are answered and the form is signed by the interviewer and dated. After 

obtaining consent and permission to audio record an alias will be agreed upon and the recorder will be 

turned on. The approach of the interviewer is in a manner acknowledging the participant’s expertise and 

seeking their valuable input designed to help to reduce sexual violence case attrition. 

48(67,21 352%(6$1',16758&7,216

INTRODUCTION 

:HDUHWDONLQJWRODZHQIRUFHPHQWGHWHFWLYHV

DERXWVH[XDOYLROHQFHFDVHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJDQG

FDVHDWWULWLRQ+RZORQJKDYH\RXEHHQDBBBBBBBB

DQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\KRZPDQ\69FDVHVKDYH\RX

KDQGOHG"

3UREHKRZJRWLQWRWKLVDUHDDQGWUDLQLQJUHFHLYHG

Part I Training and Investigation of Sex Crimes 

 



 +RZORQJKDYH\RXEHHQHPSOR\HGE\FXUUHQW

DJHQF\"

 +RZORQJKDYH\RXEHHQKDQGOLQJ

LQYHVWLJDWLQJVH[FULPHVDWWKLVDJHQF\"

 +RZGLG\RXFRPHWREHDVVLJQHGWR

LQYHVWLJDWHVH[FULPHV"

D 'LG\RXUHTXHVWWKLVDVVLJQPHQW",IVRZK\"

E :KDWZDV\RXUSUHYLRXVDVVLJQPHQW"

 ,Q\RXUH[SHULHQFHZKDWVNLOOVDUHQHHGHGWR

LQYHVWLJDWHVH[FULPHV"

D :KDWDUHWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDJRRGVH[FULPHV

GHWHFWLYH"

E :K\DUHWKHVHVNLOOVFKDUDFWHULVWLFVLPSRUWDQW"

Part II Sexual Assault Case Processing 

 Case Overview and Victim Contacts 

8VHILFWLWLRXVQDPHVIRUFDVHV

0RVWUHFHQW0RVWGLIILFXOW

 3OHDVHEULHIO\GHVFULEHWKHODVWFDVH\RXGHDOW

ZLWKLQYROYLQJDVH[XDODVVDXOW

D :KHQZDVWKDW"+RZORQJDJR"

E +RZGLG\RXOHDUQDERXWWKHDOOHJHGRIIHQVH

F :KDWKDSSHQHG"$OVRSUREHIRUWLPLQJRIWKH

UHSRUWSURPSWRXWFU\HWF

Source*: IntervieweriniƟals: ________ Page 1 of 5 revised12/4/2013 DATE:_____________

Page 194


UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 +RZGLG\RXHVWDEOLVKUDSSRUWZLWKYLFWLPV" D :KDWZDVWKHYLFWLP¶VGHPHDQRU":DVWKHYLF

WLPUHOXFWDQWKRVWLOHDQGRUXQFRRSHUDWLYH"

,I\HVKRZGLG\RXRYHUFRPHWKLV"

 :KDWIDFWRUVGLG\RXFRQVLGHULQHYDOXDWLQJWKH D :DVWKLVYLFWLPFUHGLEOH"

YLFWLP¶VFUHGLELOLW\" E ,QJHQHUDOKRZGR\RXHYDOXDWHYLFWLPFUHGLELO

'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWKH LW\"

YLFWLPLQWKLVFDVHZDVFUHGLEOH"

 :KDWZHUHWKHTXHVWLRQVLIDQ\WKDW\RXKDG D :KDWOHG\RXWRKDYHWKHVHTXHVWLRQVQRWKDYH

DERXWZKHWKHUWKHYLFWLPZDVWHOOLQJWKHWUXWK" TXHVWLRQV"

E 'LGWKHXVHRIGUXJVRUDOFRKROE\WKHYLFWLPRU

VXVSHFWLQFOXGLQJGDWHUDSHGUXJVSOD\DQ\

UROHLQWKLVFDVH"

IROORZXS,QJHQHUDOZKDWUROHGRHVXVHRI

GUXJVRUDOFRKROE\WKHYLFWLPDQGRUWKHVXV

SHFWSOD\LQWKHZD\\RXKDQGOHWKHVHFDVHV"

FDVHRXWFRPHV"

Part III Sexual Assault Case Processing 

Case Outcomes 

 :KDWZDVWKHRXWFRPHRIWKHFDVHLQFLGHQW" D :DVWKHUHDQRIILFLDOUHSRUW":DVWKHVXVSHFW

LQWHUYLHZHG"

E :DVDQDUUHVWPDGH"

F :DVLWFRQVLGHUHGWREHDIDOVHUHSRUW"

 :KDWZDVWKHOHYHORIFRRSHUDWLRQE\WKHYLF

WLPDWHDFKVWDJHRIWKHFDVH"

D 'LGWKHYLFWLPGHFOLQHWRFRRSHUDWH"

 ,QWKLVFDVHZKDWUROHGLGDYLFWLPLQMXU\ RU

ODFNWKHUHRIKDYHRQGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ"

3UREHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJQRWRQO\HYHQWXDORXW

FRPH

 ,QWKHFXUUHQWFDVHZKDWUROHLIDQ\GLGWKH

UHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHYLFWLPDQGWKHRIIHQG

HUSOD\LQWKHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ"

 'LG\RXFRQVXOWZLWKWKHSURVHFXWRU" D :KDWZDVWKHQDWXUHRIWKHFRQVXOW"

E :KDWHYLGHQFHZDVWKHUH"

F :KDWZDVWKHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJSURFHVV"

G :KDWZDVWKHRXWFRPH"

Source*: IntervieweriniƟals: ________ Page 2 of 5 revised12/4/2013 DATE:_____________

Page 195
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 +RZW\SLFDORUDW\SLFDOZDVWKLVFDVHRIVH[XDO

DVVDXOWFDVHVWKDW\RXFRPHDFURVV"

PROMPT:

6XPPDUL]HWKHIDFWRUVWKDWPDNHWKLVFDVHW\SLFDORU

FXVWRPDU\"

 :KDWZHUHWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDWLP

SDFWHGWKHFDVHRXWFRPHDQGWKHGHFLVLRQ

SRLQWVDORQJWKHZD\":KDWLIDQ\WKLQJZRXOG

\RXKDYHGRQHGLIIHUHQWO\NQRZLQJZKDW\RX

NQRZQRZ"

PROMPT:

:KDWDUHVRPHLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDWFRQWULEXWHGWR

FDVHRXWFRPHWKDWPLJKWEHXVHIXOWRRWKHUODZHQ

IRUFHPHQWSHUVRQQHO"

 3OHDVHGHVFULEHWKHPRVW',)),&8/7FDVH\RX

KDQGOHGLQYROYLQJDIHORQ\ VH[XDODVVDXOWDQG

DYLFWLPRYHUWKHDJHRILQWKHSDVWWZR

\HDUV"

 :KDWZHUHWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDWLP

SDFWHGWKHFDVHRXWFRPHDQGWKHGHFLVLRQ

SRLQWVDORQJWKHZD\":KDWLIDQ\WKLQJZRXOG

\RXKDYHGRQHGLIIHUHQWO\NQRZLQJZKDW\RX

NQRZQRZ"

PROMPT: 

:KDWDUHVRPHLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDWFRQWULEXWHGWR

FDVHRXWFRPHWKDWPLJKWEHXVHIXOWRRWKHUODZHQ

IRUFHPHQWSHUVRQQHO"



PROMPTS: 

D +RZGLG\RXOHDUQDERXWWKHDOOHJHGRIIHQVH"

E :KDWDQGZKHQZDV\RXUILUVWFRQWDFWZLWKWKH

YLFWLPOLNH"

F +RZGLG\RXDSSURDFKWKHYLFWLP"

G 7RZKDWH[WHQWZDVLWGLIILFXOWWRJHWKHUWRWHOOKHU

VWRU\"

H 'LGWKHYLFWLPFRRSHUDWH"

I +RZGLG\RXHVWDEOLVKUDSSRUWZLWKWKHYLFWLPV"

J 'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKHYLFWLPZDVUHOXFWDQWKRVWLOH

DQGRUXQFRRSHUDWLYH"

K ,I\HVKRZGLG\RXRYHUFRPHWKLV"

L 'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWKHYLFWLPZDVQRWFUHGLEOH"

M 'LG\RXFRQVXOWZLWKWKHSURVHFXWRU"

N :KDWZDVWKHQDWXUHRIWKHFRQVXOW"

O :KDWHYLGHQFHZDVWKHUH"

P :KDWZDVWKHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJSURFHVV"

Q :KDWZDVWKHRXWFRPH"

Source*: IntervieweriniƟals: ________ Page 3 of 5 revised12/4/2013 DATE:_____________

Page 196
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 Part IV Case Attrition 

 2QHRIWKHRXWFRPHVRIWKH/$VWXG\WKDWOHG PROMPTS

WRWKLVUHVHDUFKZDVDKLJKUDWHRIFDVHVQRW

JRLQJIRUZDUGWRDUUHVWDQGSURVHFXWLRQ

3OHDVHWHOOPHDERXWFDVHDWWULWLRQLQ\RXUFLW\

D :KDWLV\RXUEHVWHVWLPDWHRIWKHUDWHRI69FDVH

DWWULWLRQSHUFHQWDJHVKHUH"

E ,Q\RXUH[SHULHQFHZKDWDUHWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFV

RIWKHVH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVWKDWDUHOHDVWOLNHO\WR

UHVXOWLQFOHDUDQFHE\DUUHVW"

F :KDWDUHWKHREVWDFOHVWKDW\RXHQFRXQWHULQ

WKHVHW\SHVRIFDVHV"

G :KLFKW\SHVDUHPRVWOLNHO\WRUHVXOWLQDUUHVWDQG

HYHQWXDOVXFFHVVIXOSURVHFXWLRQ"

H :KDWDUHWKHREVWDFOHVWKDW\RXHQFRXQWHULQ

WKHVHW\SHVRIFDVHV"

 $UHWKHUHDQ\3GHFLVLRQUXOHV ́WKDW\RXIROORZ

LQGHFLGLQJZKHWKHUWRPRYHIRUZDUGZLWKD

FDVH"

PROMPTS: 

D +RZGR\RXZHLJKLVVXHVRISUREDEOHFDXVH"

E :KDWRWKHULVVXHVDUHLPSRUWDQWWRWKHFDVHPRY

LQJIRUZDUG"

 $UHYLHZRIFDVHILOHVLQ/RV$QJHOHVUHYHDOHG

WKDWPDQ\VH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVDUHSUHVHQWHG

WRSURVHFXWRUVIRUSUHILOLQJFRQVLGHUDWLRQ2

WKDWLVWKHSROLFHNQRZZLWKVRPHGHJUHHRI

FHUWDLQW\ZKRWKHVXVSHFWLVEXWWKH\ZLOOQRW

PDNHDQDUUHVWXQOHVVWKH''$UHYLHZLQJWKH

FDVHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHUHLVVXIILFLHQWHYLGHQFH

WRPRYHIRUZDUG

7RZKDWH[WHQWLVWKLVVWDQGDUGRSHUDWLQJ

SURFHGXUHLQVH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVLQWKLV

MXULVGLFWLRQ"

PROMPTS: 

3OHDVHWHOOPHPRUHDERXWWKHSURFHVVKHUH

D 'RHVWKLVRFFXULQRWKHUW\SHVRIFDVHV",IVR

ZKDWW\SHVRIFDVHV"

E ,VWKHUHVRPHDIRUPDOSROLF\JXLGLQJWKLV"

F :KDWLVWKHKLVWRU\RIWKLVDSSURDFK"

 :KDWIDFWRUVZRXOGOHDG\RXWRPDNHDQDUUHVW

ZLWKRXWFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH''$"

 :KDWIDFWRUVZRXOGOHDG\RXWRXQIRXQGD

FDVH"

 ,QD3VKHVDLGKHVDLG ́FDVHZKDWW\SHRIFRU

URERUDWLRQGR\RXORRNIRU"

PROMPT: 

:KDWZRXOG\RXQHHGLQD3VKHVDLGKHVDLG ́FDVHWR

PDNHDQDUUHVW"

Source*: IntervieweriniƟals: ________ Page 4 of 5 revised12/4/2013 DATE:_____________

Page 197
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 Part V Resources 

 +RZZRXOG\RXGHVFULEH\RXUGHSDUWPHQW¶V

UHODWLRQVKLSZLWKWKH3URVHFXWRU¶VRIILFHZLWK

UHVSHFWWRVH[FULPHV"

PROMPT

:KDWDUHRIILFLDODQGXQRIILFLDODUUDQJHPHQWVHVSH

FLDOO\VXUURXQGLQJFDVHUHYLHZ"

 ,IWKHUHZHUHXQOLPLWHGUHVRXUFHVZKDWZRXOG

EHWKHEHVWZD\WRLQFUHDVHWKHQXPEHURI

VH[XDODVVDXOWUHSRUWVLQZKLFKDVXVSHFWLV

DUUHVWHGDQGVXFFHVVIXOO\SURVHFXWHG"

PROMPT: 

:KDWFRXOGEHGRQHDWDQ\VWDJHWRLQFUHDVHVXF

FHVVIXOSURVHFXWLRQ"

 ,Q\RXURSLQLRQZKDWDUHWKHELJJHVWFKDOOHQJ

HVIDFHGE\YLFWLPVZKHQUHSRUWLQJDVH[XDO

DVVDXOW":KDWUROHVKRXOGWKHSROLFHDQG'$¶V

2IILFHSOD\LQGHFUHDVLQJWKHGLIILFXOWLHVDVVR

FLDWHGZLWKVH[XDODVVDXOWVIRUYLFWLPV"

PROMPT: 

:KDWDUHWKHURDGEORFNVIRUYLFWLPV":KDWFRXOGEH

GRQHDWDQ\VWDJHWRDPHOLRUDWHWKHGLIILFXOWLHV"

 +DYH\RXUHFHLYHGDQ\VSHFLDOL]HGWUDLQLQJLQ

WKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGSURVHFXWLRQRIVH[

FULPHV"

PROMPT: 

:KDWW\SHRIWUDLQLQJ":KRGHOLYHUHGLW"1XPEHURI

VSHFLDOL]HGWUDLQLQJVGDWHV"

 'R\RXWKLQNWKHUHVKRXOGWKHUHEHVRPHW\SH

RIVSHFLDOL]HGXQLWIRUKDQGOLQJVH[FULPHV"

:K\"

PROMPT: 

:K\RUZK\QRW"+RZRUJDQL]HG"

Part VI Closing

 +RZLVWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRISROLFHGHWHFWLYHV

HYDOXDWHGLQ\RXURIILFH"

$UHSHUIRUPDQFHHYDOXDWLRQVWKHVDPHIRU

VH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVDVWKH\DUHIRURWKHUFDV

HV"

 ,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJHOVH\RXIHHOLWLVLPSRUWDQW

IRUXVWRNQRZDERXWKDQGOLQJWKHVHFDVHV"

7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGIRU\RXUZLOOLQJQHVVWRSDUWLFLSDWH

DEBRIEFING HAPPENS AFTER END OF INTERVIEW AND WHEN 

RECORDING HAS CEASED

Source*: IntervieweriniƟals: ________ Page 5 of 5 revised12/4/2013 DATE:_____________

Page 198
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito Prosecutor Interview Form

Today’s Date: ___________

The consent form has been forwarded to the participant or provided in person and is read and reviewed by 

the participant. Any questions are answered and the form is signed by the interviewer and dated. After obtaining consent and permission to audio record an alias will be agreed upon and the recorder will be turned 

on. The approach of the interviewer is in a manner acknowledging the participant’s expertise and seeking 

their valuable input designed to help to reduce sexual violence case attrition. 

,1752'8&7,21

:HDUHWDONLQJWRSURVHFXWRUVDERXWVH[XDOYLROHQFHFDVHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJDQGFDVHDWWULWLRQ

'HPRJUDSKLFVDQG%DFNJURXQG SURPSW

1. Gender: ප Maleප FemaleපTransgender

2. Year of birth: ________

3. Race (check all that apply):a.පWhiteb.පBlackc.පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve

d. පAsian/PaciĮc Islander: Specify ________

e. පOther: Specify ________

4. Do you idenƟfy yourself as a Hispanic or LaƟno? ප yes ප no

5. What is your marital status?පsingleපmarriedපdivorcedපseparated

6. In college or beyond did you study psychology or a related Įeld?පyesපno

7. Have you or any members of your family or any of your friends been acƟve as either a professional or volunteer helper in the Įeld of counseling, therapy, psychiatry, psychology, or social

work?පyesපno

,QYHVWLJDWLRQRI6H[&ULPHV

8. Are you currently assigned to a special sex crimes unit? ප yesපno

Specify current assignment: _______________________________

Did you request this assignment?

ප yesපno

9. Race (check all that apply):a.පWhiteb.පBlackc.පNaƟve American/Alaskan NaƟve

d. පAsian/PaciĮc Islander: Specify ________

e. පOther: Specify ________

10. What was your previous assignment (in DAs oĸce)?_______________________

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 1 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 199
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

Today’s Date: ___________

,QYHVWLJDWLRQRI6H[&ULPHVFRQW

11. In your oĸce, what is the basis for prosecutor evaluaƟon and assessment of performance?

Specify:

Would you say it is based mostly on

ප Eĸciency Meaning— How many cases you can close?

ප Success/ convicƟons

ප Plea negoƟaƟon? Meaning— How many cases you can plead out?

ප Or something else?

ප Legal suĸciency ?

12. In the past month, how many cases involving sexual assault have you responded to?

______# of cases (If 0 move to next part of interview)

Detail response type made:_______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

12 a.

What is your caseload right now?______________

Is this typical?_______________________________________

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 2 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 200
What proporƟon of these cases involved:

13. vicƟm injuries? %

14. uncooperaƟve/hosƟle vicƟm? %

15. use of a weapon by a suspect? %

16. you quesƟoned vicƟm credibility? %

17. use or suspected use of drugs and/or alcohol by the vicƟm at theƟme of the incident? %

18. use or suspected use of drugs and/or alcohol by the suspect at theƟme of the incident? %

19. suspicion that the vicƟm was drugged or otherwise rendered unconscious by the suspect? %

20. a vicƟm who knew the oīender? %

21. DNA evidence playing a role?

Are jurors looking for DNA evidence in sexual assault cases?

ප yes ප no

%

1111

22. successful prosecuƟon? %

23. a false report? %

24. police consultaƟon with you/ your oĸce before making an arrest or before charging? %

'Ž ƚŽ ŶĞdžƚ ƉĂŐĞ

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 3 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 201
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito Prosecutor Interview Form

6H[XDO$VVDXOW&DVH3URFHVVLQJ&DVH2XWFRPHV

Note ĮcƟƟous names to be used for each case (three) indicate:

x most recent;___________________

x most diĸcult;___________________

x most successful____________________

MOST RECENTCASE PROMPTS: 

a. WůĞĂƐĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ Ă ďƌŝĞĨ ŽǀĞƌǀŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐĂƐĞ͘

 3OHDVHGHVFULEHWKHPRVW5(&(17FDVH

\RXKDQGOHGLQYROYLQJDIHORQ\ VH[XDO

DVVDXOWDQGDYLFWLP\HDUVRIDJHRU

ROGHUZKHUHWKHVXVSHFWZDV127

DIDPLO\PHPEHU

ď͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ ŝƚ ĐŽŵĞ ƚŽ LJŽƵƌ Ă͘ ĞŶƟŽŶͬ ŚŽǁ ĚŝĚ

LJŽƵ ďĞĐŽŵĞ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ͍

Đ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ůĞĂƌŶ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ĂůůĞŐĞĚ ŽīĞŶƐĞ͍

Ě͘ tŚĂƚ ƐƚĞƉƐ ŚĂĚ ďĞĞŶ ƚĂŬĞŶ ďLJ ƚŚĞ : ƐLJƐƚĞŵ

ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ LJŽƵƌŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚ͍LJ ǁŚŽŵ͍

Ğ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĞƌĞ LJŽƵƌ ĨŝƌƐƚ ƐƚĞƉƐ ŝŶ ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƚŚŝƐ

ĐĂƐĞ͍

Ĩ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ǁŽƌŬ ǁŝƚŚ ĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐ ŽŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ͍

Ő͘ tŚĂƚ ŚĂƉƉĞŶĞĚ ŶĞdžƚ͍

 3OHDVHGHVFULEHDQ\FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK

WKHSROLFHDWDQ\SRLQWGXULQJRUEHIRUH

WKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQ

PROMPTS: 

Ă͘ tŚLJ ĚŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƉŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ LJŽƵ͍

ď͘ /Ɛ ƚŚŝƐ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ

ĨŽƌ Ăůů ĨĞůŽŶŝĞƐ Žƌ ŽŶůLJ ĨŽƌ ƐĞdž ĐƌŝŵĞƐ͍

Đ͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ƐĞŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐĂƐĞ ďĂĐŬ ƚŽ ƉŽůŝĐĞ

ĨŽƌ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶ͍



Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 4 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 202


UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 :KDWZDV\RXUILUVWFRQWDFWZLWKWKHYLFWLPOLNH"

:KDWKDSSHQHGQH[W"

:KDWZDVWKHUROHRIWKHYLFWLP

DGYRFDWHLIDQ\"

PROMPTS: 

Ă͘ tĂƐ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ ŚĞůƉĨƵů͍

ď͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ͍

Đ͘ dŽ ǁŚĂƚ ĞdžƚĞŶƚ ǁĂƐ ŝƚ ĚŝĸĐƵůƚ ƚŽ ŐĞƚ Śŝŵͬ ŚĞƌ ƚŽ

ƚĞůů ŚĞƌ ƐƚŽƌLJ͍

Ě͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞ͍

Ğ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚ ƌĂƉƉŽƌƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ;ƐͿ͍

Ĩ͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ǁĂƐ ƌĞůƵĐƚĂŶƚ͕ ŚŽƐƟůĞ

ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƵŶĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƟǀĞ͍

Ő͘ /Ĩ LJĞƐ͕ ǁŚLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ŚŽǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ŽǀĞƌĐŽŵĞ ƚŚŝƐ͍

Ś͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ^Zd ƚĞĂŵ͍

D+RZGLG\RXDVVHVVWKHYLFWLP¶VFUHGLELOLW\"

'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWKHYLFWLPLQWKLVFDVH

ZDVFUHGLEOH"

PROMPTS: 

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ůĞĚ LJŽƵ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐͬ ŶŽƚ ŚĂǀĞ

ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍

ď͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů ďLJ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ Žƌ

ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ĂŶLJ ƌŽůĞ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ͍ ;ĨŽůůŽǁͲƵƉ͗ͲͲ/Ŷ

ŐĞŶĞƌĂů ǁŚĂƚ ƌŽůĞ ĚŽĞƐ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů ďLJ

ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂLJ LJŽƵ

ŚĂŶĚůĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͍Ϳ

Đ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ^E Žƌ ^Zd ƚĞĂŵ ŚĞůƉ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚŝƐ

ŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƟŽŶ͍

E,QWKLVFDVHZKDWZHUHWKHTXHVWLRQVLIDQ\ Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ŝŶ ĞǀĂůƵĂƟŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ

ǀŝĐƟŵ͛Ɛ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ͍ WKDW\RXKDGDERXWZKHWKHUWKHYLFWLPZDV

WHOOLQJWKHWUXWK" ď͘ /Ɛ ƚŚŝƐ ŚŽǁ LJŽƵ ŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJ ĂƐƐĞƐƐ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ Žƌ

ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƋƵĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ?

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 5 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 203
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito Prosecutor Interview Form

 ,QWKLVFDVHZKDWUROHGLGDYLFWLPLQMXU\

RUODFNWKHUHRIKDYHRQFDVH

SUHSDUDWLRQGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ"

 ,QWKHFXUUHQWFDVHZKDWUROHLIDQ\

GLGWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHYLFWLP

DQGWKHRIIHQGHUSOD\LQWKHFDVH

SUHSDUDWLRQGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ"



PROMPTS: 

PROMPTS: 

WƌŽďĞ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌŝĂů ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ

;ŶŽƚ ŽŶůLJ ĞǀĞŶƚƵĂů ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞͿ

PROMPTS:

WƌŽďĞ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌŝĂů ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ

;ŶŽƚ ŽŶůLJ ĞǀĞŶƚƵĂů ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞͿ

Ă͘ tĞƌĞ ƚŚĞƌĞ ĂŶLJ ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŶŐ Žƌ

ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŶŐE ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͍

ď͘ tŽƵůĚ LJŽƵ ŚĂǀĞ ŵĂĚĞ Ă ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ

ŵŽƌĞ E ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͍

Đ͘ tŝƚŚ ůĞƐƐ͍

 +RZGLG'1$HYLGHQFHRUWKHODFN

WKHUHRILQIOXHQFH\RXUGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ"

WƌŽďĞ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌŝĂů ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ

;ŶŽƚ ŽŶůLJ ĞǀĞŶƚƵĂů ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞͿ

 :KDWZDVWKHRXWFRPHRIWKHFDVHUHSRUW

LQFLGHQW"3OHDVHEULHIO\UHYLHZHDFKRIWKHVH

VWDJHV$UUDLJQPHQWDUUHVWSUREDEOHFDVH

KHDULQJVRUJUDQGMXU\"3OHDQHJRWLDWLRQV

WULDOSURFHHGLQJVGLVSRVLWLRQ

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ ƌƌĂŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ͙ĞƚĐͲͲtŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂƌŐĞ ;ŝĨ

ĂŶLJͿ ĂŶĚ ŚŽǁ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌƌŝǀĞĚ Ăƚ͍

ď͘ tĞƌĞ Ăůů ƚŚĞ ůĞŐĂů ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐƌŝŵĞ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ

;ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ ůĂĐŬ ŽĨ ĐŽŶƐĞŶƚ͕ ĨŽƌĐĞͿ͍

Đ͘ tĂƐ ƚŚŝƐ ĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĞĚ ĂƐ Ă ĨĂůƐĞ ƌĞƉŽƌƚ͍

Ě͘ WƌŽďĂďůĞ ĐĂƐĞ ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐͬ ŐƌĂŶĚ ũƵƌLJ͍

Ğ͘ WůĞĂ ŶĞŐŽƟĂƟŽŶƐͬ ŵŽƟŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƌƵůŝŶŐƐ ;ƌĂƉĞ

ƐŚŝĞůĚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ͍Ϳ

Ĩ͘ dƌŝĂů ƉƌŽĐĞĞĚŝŶŐƐ͕ ŬĞLJ ƚĞƐƟŵŽŶLJ ĂŶĚ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ

ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚ

Ő͘ ŝƐƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 6 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 204
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito Prosecutor Interview Form

 +RZW\SLFDORUDW\SLFDOZDVWKLVFDVHRIVH[XDO

DVVDXOWFDVHVWKDW\RXFRPHDFURVV"

PROMPTS: 

^ƵŵŵĂƌŝnjĞ ƚŚĞ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ

ƚLJƉŝĐĂů Žƌ ĐƵƐƚŽŵĂƌLJ͍

tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ ƌŽůĞ͍

tĞƌĞ ƚŚĞƌĞ ŵƵůƟƉůĞ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚĞƌƐ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ͍

 :KDWZHUHWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDW

LPSDFWHGWKHFDVHRXWFRPHDQGWKHGHFLVLRQ

SRLQWVDORQJWKHZD\":KDWLIDQ\WKLQJ

ZRXOG\RXKDYHGRQHGLIIHUHQWO\NQRZLQJ

ZKDW\RXNQRZQRZ"

PROMPTS: 

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƐŽŵĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ

ƚŽ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵŝŐŚƚ ďĞ ƵƐĞĨƵů ƚŽ ŽƚŚĞƌ

ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌƐ͍

dŚĞ ^E ĞdžĂŵ͍

dŚĞ ^Zd ŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚ͍

 +RZGLGRWKHUFULPLQDOMXVWLFHDFWRUVDIIHFW

WKHRXWFRPHRIWKHFDVHSROLFHMXGJHMXU\

YLFWLPDGYRFDWH"

+RZGLGHDFKRIWKHVHJURXSVSRVLWLYHO\RU

QHJDWLYHO\DIIHFWWKHRXWFRPH"

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ WŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ Žƌ ƚĞƐƟŵŽŶLJ

ď͘ :ƵĚŐĞ͛Ɛ ƌƵůŝŶŐƐ͕ ƐĞůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ũƵƌLJ

Đ͘ :ƵƌLJ ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ͍

Ě͘ sŝĐƟŵ ĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ ƌŽůĞ͍

'Ž ƚŽ ŶĞdžƚ ƉĂŐĞ ĨŽƌ

MOST DIFFICULT CASE

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 7 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 205
Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

6H[XDO$VVDXOW&DVH3URFHVVLQJ&DVH2XWFRPHV

UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

MOST DIFFICULTCASE PROMPTS:

Ă͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ůĞĂƌŶ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ĂůůĞŐĞĚ ŽīĞŶƐĞ͍

36. Please describe the most DIFFICULT case

you handled involving a (felony) sexual assault ď͘ tŚĂƚ ĂŶĚ ǁŚĞŶ ǁĂƐ LJŽƵƌ ĨŝƌƐƚ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ

ǀŝĐƟŵ ůŝŬĞ͍ and a vicƟm 13 years of age or older where the suspect

Đ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ͍

was NOT a family member.

Ě͘ dŽ ǁŚĂƚ ĞdžƚĞŶƚ ǁĂƐ ŝƚ ĚŝĸĐƵůƚ ƚŽ ŐĞƚ ŚĞƌ ƚŽ ƚĞůů

ŚĞƌ ƐƚŽƌLJ͍

Ğ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞ͍

Ĩ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚ ƌĂƉƉŽƌƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ;ƐͿ͍

Ő͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ǁĂƐ ƌĞůƵĐƚĂŶƚ͕ ŚŽƐƟůĞ

ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƵŶĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƟǀĞ͍

Ś͘ /Ĩ LJĞƐ͕ ŚŽǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ŽǀĞƌĐŽŵĞ ƚŚŝƐ͍

ŝ͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ǁĂƐ ŶŽƚ ĐƌĞĚŝďůĞ͍

ũ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƉŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ ǁŝƚŚ LJŽƵ͍

Ŭ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ŶĂƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ͍

ů͘ tŚĂƚ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ͍

ŵ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͍

Ŷ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƌŽůĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ͍

Ž͘ tĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ^Zd ŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚ͍

  

 



 PROMPTS: 

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƐŽŵĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŶͲ

ƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵŝŐŚƚ ďĞ

ƵƐĞĨƵů ƚŽ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌƐ͍

37. What were the most important factors that

impacted the case outcome and the

decision points along the way?

What, if anything, would you have done diīerently

knowing what you know now?

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 8 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 206
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research Project Principal Investigators: on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

University of Massachusetts Lowell (funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

PROMPTS: 

D+RZGLG\RXDVVHVVWKHYLFWLP¶VFUHGLELOLW\"

'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWKHYLFWLPLQWKLVFDVH

ZDVFUHGLEOH"

E,QWKLVFDVHZKDWZHUHWKHTXHVWLRQVLIDQ\

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ůĞĚ LJŽƵ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐͬ ŶŽƚ

ŚĂǀĞ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍

ď͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů ďLJ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ Žƌ

ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ĂŶLJ ƌŽůĞ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ͍ ;ĨŽůůŽǁͲƵƉ͗ͲͲ/Ŷ

ŐĞŶĞƌĂů ǁŚĂƚ ƌŽůĞ ĚŽĞƐ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů

ďLJ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂLJ

LJŽƵ ŚĂŶĚůĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͍Ϳ

Đ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ^E Žƌ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ ĂīĞĐƚ ƚŚŝƐ

ŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƟŽŶ͍

WKDW\RXKDGDERXWZKHWKHUWKHYLFWLPZDV

WHOOLQJWKHWUXWK"

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ŝŶ ĞǀĂůƵĂƟŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ

ǀŝĐƟŵ͛Ɛ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ͍

ď͘ /Ɛ ƚŚŝƐ ŚŽǁ LJŽƵ ŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJ ĂƐƐĞƐƐ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ Žƌ

ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƋƵĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ?

 +RZW\SLFDORUDW\SLFDOZDVWKLVFDVHRIVH[XDO

DVVDXOWFDVHVWKDW\RXFRPHDFURVV"

PROMPTS: 

^ƵŵŵĂƌŝnjĞ ƚŚĞ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ

ƚLJƉŝĐĂů Žƌ ĐƵƐƚŽŵĂƌLJ͍

 +RZGLGRWKHUFULPLQDOMXVWLFHDFWRUVDIIHFW

WKHRXWFRPHRIWKHFDVHSROLFHMXGJHMXU\

YLFWLPDGYRFDWH"

+RZGLGHDFKRIWKHVHJURXSVSRVLWLYHO\RU

QHJDWLYHO\DIIHFWWKHRXWFRPH"

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ WŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ Žƌ ƚĞƐƟŵŽŶLJ

ď͘ :ƵĚŐĞ͛Ɛ ƌƵůŝŶŐƐ͕ ƐĞůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ũƵƌLJ

Đ͘ :ƵƌLJ ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ͍

Ě͘ sŝĐƟŵĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ ƌŽůĞ͍

'Ž ƚŽ ŶĞdžƚ ƉĂŐĞ ĨŽƌ

MOST SUCCESSFUL CASE

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 9 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 207
Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

6H[XDO$VVDXOW&DVH3URFHVVLQJ&DVH2XWFRPHV

UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

MOST SUCCESSFUL CASE PROMPTS:

Ă͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ůĞĂƌŶ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ĂůůĞŐĞĚ ŽīĞŶƐĞ͍

41. Please describe the most SUCCESSFUL case

you handled involving a (felony) sexual

assault and a vicƟm 13 years of age or older

where the suspect was NOT a family member.

ď͘ tŚĂƚ ĂŶĚ ǁŚĞŶ ǁĂƐ LJŽƵƌ ĨŝƌƐƚ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ

ǀŝĐƟŵ ůŝŬĞ͍

Đ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ͍

Ě͘ dŽ ǁŚĂƚ ĞdžƚĞŶƚ ǁĂƐ ŝƚ ĚŝĸĐƵůƚ ƚŽ ŐĞƚ ŚĞƌ ƚŽ ƚĞůů

ŚĞƌ ƐƚŽƌLJ͍

Ğ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞ͍

Ĩ͘ ,Žǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚ ƌĂƉƉŽƌƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ;ƐͿ͍

Ő͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ǁĂƐ ƌĞůƵĐƚĂŶƚ͕ ŚŽƐƟůĞ

ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƵŶĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƟǀĞ͍

Ś͘ /Ĩ LJĞƐ͕ ŚŽǁ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ŽǀĞƌĐŽŵĞ ƚŚŝƐ͍

ŝ͘ ŝĚ LJŽƵ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ǁĂƐ ŶŽƚ ĐƌĞĚŝďůĞ͍

ũ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƉŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ ǁŝƚŚ LJŽƵ͍

Ŭ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ŶĂƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚ͍

ů͘ tŚĂƚ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ͍

ŵ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͍

Ŷ͘ tŚĂƚ ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƌŽůĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ͍

Ž͘ tĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ^Zd ŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚ͍

42. What were the most important factors that

impacted the case outcome and the

decision points along the way?

What, if anything, would you have done diīerently

knowing what you know now?

 PROMPTS: 

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƐŽŵĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŶͲ

ƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵŝŐŚƚ ďĞ

ƵƐĞĨƵů ƚŽ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌƐ͍

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 10 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 208
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

D+RZGLG\RXDVVHVVWKHYLFWLP¶VFUHGLELOLW\"

'LG\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWKHYLFWLPLQWKLVFDVH

ZDVFUHGLEOH"

E,QWKLVFDVHZKDWZHUHWKHTXHVWLRQVLIDQ\

WKDW\RXKDGDERXWZKHWKHUWKHYLFWLPZDV

WHOOLQJWKHWUXWK"

PROMPTS: 

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ůĞĚ LJŽƵ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐͬ ŶŽƚ ŚĂǀĞ

ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍

ď͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů ďLJ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ Žƌ ƐƵƐͲ

ƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ĂŶLJ ƌŽůĞ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ͍ ;ĨŽůůŽǁͲƵƉ͗ͲͲ/Ŷ ŐĞŶĞƌĂů

ǁŚĂƚ ƌŽůĞ ĚŽĞƐ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĚƌƵŐƐ Žƌ ĂůĐŽŚŽů ďLJ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ

ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ ƉůĂLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂLJ LJŽƵ ŚĂŶĚůĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ

ĐĂƐĞƐ͍ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͍Ϳ

Đ͘ ŝĚ ƚŚĞ ^E ĞdžĂŵ Žƌ ^Zd ŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞ ƚŚŝƐ ŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ͍

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĚŝĚ LJŽƵ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ŝŶ ĞǀĂůƵĂƟŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ

ǀŝĐƟŵ͛Ɛ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ͍

ď͘ /Ɛ ƚŚŝƐ ŚŽǁ LJŽƵ ŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJ ĂƐƐĞƐƐ ĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ Žƌ

ǁĂƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƋƵĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ?

 +RZW\SLFDORUDW\SLFDOZDVWKLVFDVHRIVH[XDO

DVVDXOWFDVHVWKDW\RXFRPHDFURVV"

PROMPTS: 

^ƵŵŵĂƌŝnjĞ ƚŚĞ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ

ƚLJƉŝĐĂů Žƌ ĐƵƐƚŽŵĂƌLJ͍

 :KDWZHUHWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUVWKDW

LPSDFWHGWKHFDVHRXWFRPHDQGWKHGHFLVLRQ

SRLQWVDORQJWKHZD\"

:KDWLIDQ\WKLQJZRXOG\RXKDYHGRQH

GLIIHUHQWO\NQRZLQJZKDW\RXNQRZQRZ"

PROMPTS: 

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƐŽŵĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚͲ

ĞĚ ƚŽ ĐĂƐĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵŝŐŚƚ ďĞ ƵƐĞĨƵů ƚŽ ŽƚŚĞƌ

ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌƐ͍

 +RZGLGRWKHUFULPLQDOMXVWLFHDFWRUVDIIHFW

WKHRXWFRPHRIWKHFDVHSROLFHMXGJHMXU\

YLFWLPDGYRFDWH"

+RZGLGHDFKRIWKHVHJURXSVSRVLWLYHO\RU

QHJDWLYHO\DIIHFWWKHRXWFRPH"

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ WŽůŝĐĞ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ Žƌ ƚĞƐƟŵŽŶLJ

ď͘ :ƵĚŐĞ͛Ɛ ƌƵůŝŶŐƐ͕ ƐĞůĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ũƵƌLJ

Đ͘ :ƵƌLJ ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ͍

Ě͘ sŝĐƟŵ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞ͍

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 11 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 209
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

CASE ATTRITION

 2QHRIWKHRXWFRPHVRIWKH/$VWXG\WKDWOHG

WRWKLVUHVHDUFKZDVDKLJKUDWHRIFDVHDWWUL

WLRQLQVH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHV3OHDVHWHOOPH

DERXWFDVHDWWULWLRQLQ\RXUFLW\

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ tŚĂƚ ŝƐ LJŽƵƌ ďĞƐƚ ĞƐƟŵĂƚĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĂƚĞ ŽĨ ^s ĐĂƐĞ

ĂƩƌŝƟŽŶ ;ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞƐͿ ŚĞƌĞ͍

ď͘ /Ŷ LJŽƵƌ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ ǁŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƟĐƐ

ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞdžƵĂů ĂƐƐĂƵůƚ ĐĂƐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ůĞĂƐƚ ůŝŬĞůLJ

ƚŽ ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƟŽŶ͍

Đ͘ tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ŽďƐƚĂĐůĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ LJŽƵ ĞŶĐŽƵŶƚĞƌ ŝŶ

ƚŚĞƐĞ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍

Ě͘ tŚŝĐŚ ƚLJƉĞƐ ĂƌĞ ŵŽƐƚ ůŝŬĞůLJ ƚŽ ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů

ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƟŽŶ͍

Ğ͘ tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ŽďƐƚĂĐůĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ LJŽƵ ĞŶĐŽƵŶƚĞƌ ŝŶ

ƚŚĞƐĞ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍

 :KDWDUHWKH3GHFLVLRQUXOHV ́WKDW\RXIROORZLQ

GHFLGLQJZKHWKHUWRPRYHIRUZDUGZLWKDFDVH"

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ ,Žǁ ĚŽ LJŽƵ ǁĞŝŐŚ ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ŽĨ ƉƌŽŽĨ͍

ď͘ tŚĂƚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ

ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƟŽŶ͍

Đ͘ Ž LJŽƵ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚŝƐ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ŽŶ LJŽƵ ŽǁŶŽƌ ǁŝƚŚ

ŝŶƉƵƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐ Žƌ ^Zd͍

Ě͘ tŚŽ ŵĂŬĞƐ ƚŚĞ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƚŽ ĨŝůĞ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͍



A review of case files in Los Angeles revealed that 

many sexual assault cases are presented to prosecutors for pre-filing consideration—that is, the police 

know with some degree of certainty who the suspect is 

but they will not make an arrest unless the DDA reviewing the case indicates that there is sufficient evidence 

to move forward. 

7RZKDWH[WHQWLVWKLVVWDQGDUGRSHUDWLQJ

SURFHGXUHLQVH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVLQWKLV

MXULVGLFWLRQ"

PROMPTS:

WůĞĂƐĞ ƚĞůů ŵĞ ŵŽƌĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ŚĞƌĞ͘

Ă͘ ŽĞƐ ƚŚŝƐ ŽĐĐƵƌ ŝŶ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍/Ĩ ƐŽ͕

ǁŚĂƚ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ĐĂƐĞƐ͍

ď͘ /Ɛ ƚŚĞƌĞ ƐŽŵĞ Ă ĨŽƌŵĂů ƉŽůŝĐLJ ŐƵŝĚŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ͍

Đ͘ tŚĂƚ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ͍

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 12 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 210
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

 :KDWIDFWRUVZRXOGOHDG\RXWRUHMHFWD

FDVH" PROMPTS:

 ,QD3VKHVDLGKHVDLG ́FDVHZKDWW\SHRI

FRUURERUDWLRQGR\RXORRNIRU"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ǁŽƵůĚ LJŽƵ ŶĞĞĚ ŝŶ Ă ͞ƐŚĞ ƐĂŝĚͬŚĞ ƐĂŝĚ͟ ĐĂƐĞ

ƚŽ ĨŝůĞ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ĂŶLJ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƌƌŽďŽͲ

ƌĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐƟŵ͛Ɛ ƚĞƐƟŵŽŶLJ͍

 2QFHVH[XDODVVDXOWRUVH[XDOEDWWHU\FKDUJ

HVKDYHEHHQILOHGDQGWKHGHIHQGDQWKDV

EHHQERXQGRYHUIRUWULDOZKDWZRXOGW\SL

FDOO\OHDGWRGLVPLVVDORIWKHFKDUJHV"

PROMPTS:

dŚŝŶŬ ĂďŽƵƚ ůĂƐƚ ĚŝƐŵŝƐƐĂů͍ tĂƐ ƚŚŝƐ Ă ƚLJƉŝĐĂů ĐĂƐĞ͍

 :KDWDUHWKHPRVWFRPPRQW\SHVRISOHD

DJUHHPHQWVLQVH[XDODVVDXOWFDVHVLQWKLV

MXULVGLFWLRQ":K\RUZKHQGRWKHVHRFFXUPRVW

RIWHQ"

PROMPTS:

Ž ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƚŽƌƐ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌŝŽƵƐŶĞƐƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ

ƉƌŝŵĂƌLJ ĐŚĂƌŐĞ͕ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͕

ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚ Ă ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ ƐĞŶƚĞŶĐĞ͕ ĂŐƌĞĞ ƚŽ ƐƚĂŶĚ ŵƵƚĞ

Ăƚ ƐĞŶƚĞŶĐŝŶŐ͍

Ž LJŽƵ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ Ă ƉůĞĂ ďĂƌŐĂŝŶ ƚŽ ďĞ Ă ǁŝŶ͍

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 13 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 211
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

RESOURCES

54. +RZZRXOG\RXGHVFULEH\RXURIILFH¶VUHODWLRQ

VKLSZLWKWKH3ROLFHZLWKUHVSHFWWRVH[FULPHV"

D+RZZRXOG\RXGHVFULEH\RXURIILFHUHODWLRQ

VKLSZLWKWKHYLFWLPDGYRFDWH"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŽĸĐŝĂů ĂŶĚ ƵŶŽĸĐŝĂů ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ

ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐĂƐĞ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ͍

 ,IWKHUHZHUHXQOLPLWHGUHVRXUFHVZKDW

ZRXOGEHWKHEHVWZD\WRLQFUHDVHWKHQXP

EHURIVH[XDODVVDXOWUHSRUWVLQZKLFKDVXV

SHFWLVDUUHVWHGDQGVXFFHVVIXOO\SURVHFXW

HG"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĚŽŶĞ Ăƚ ĂŶLJ ƐƚĂŐĞ ƚŽ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ƐƵĐͲ

ĐĞƐƐĨƵů ƉƌŽƐĞĐƵƟŽŶ͍

tŽƵůĚ ŵŽƌĞ ŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶ Žƌ ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ďĞ ŚĞůƉĨƵů͍

 ,Q\RXURSLQLRQZKDWDUHWKHELJJHVWFKDOOHQJ

HVIDFHGE\YLFWLPVZKHQUHSRUWLQJDVH[XDO

DVVDXOW"

:KDWUROHVKRXOGWKHSROLFHDQG'$¶V2IILFH

SOD\LQGHFUHDVLQJWKHGLIILFXOWLHVDVVRFLDWHG

ZLWKVH[XDODVVDXOWVIRUYLFWLPV"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ƌŽĂĚďůŽĐŬƐ ĨŽƌ ǀŝĐƟŵƐ͍

tŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĚŽŶĞ Ăƚ ĂŶLJ ƐƚĂŐĞ ƚŽ ĂŵĞůŝŽƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ

ĚŝĸĐƵůƟĞƐ͍

 +DYH\RXUHFHLYHGDQ\VSHFLDOL]HGWUDLQLQJ

LQWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGSURVHFXWLRQRIVH[

FULPHV"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ƚLJƉĞ ŽĨ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͍

tŚŽ ĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚ ŝƚ͍

EƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjĞĚ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƐ͕ ĚĂƚĞƐ͍

 'R\RXWKLQNWKHUHVKRXOGEHVRPHW\SHRI

VSHFLDOL]HGWUDLQLQJIRUDSURVHFXWRUKDQGOLQJ

VH[FULPHV"

PROMPTS:

tŚLJ Žƌ ǁŚLJ ŶŽƚ͍

tŚĂƚ ƚLJƉĞ͍

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 14 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 212
UML STUDY ID #_________________________

Decision-Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Multi-site Replication Research 

on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S 

(funded under an Office of Justice Programs Grant #2012-IJ-CX-0052) 

Project Principal Investigators: 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

CLOSING

 +RZLVWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRISURVHFXWRUV

HYDOXDWHGLQ\RXURIILFH"

$UHSHUIRUPDQFHHYDOXDWLRQVWKHVDPHIRUVH[XDO

DVVDXOWFDVHVDVWKH\DUHIRURWKHUFDVHV"

PROMPTS:

tŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŽĸĐŝĂů ĂŶĚ ƵŶŽĸĐŝĂů ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ

ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐĂƐĞ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ͍

 :KDWLVWKHSURFHVVIRUGHFLGLQJZKHWKHUD

FDVHZLOOEHWULHG"

PROMPTS:

Ă͘ ŽĞƐ Ă ƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚĂƚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͍

ď͘ tŚĂƚ ŬŝŶĚ ŽĨ ŝŶƉƵƚ ĚŽ LJŽƵ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ĂƩŽƌŶĞLJ

ŚĂǀĞ͍

Đ͘ ,Žǁ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ŝƐ ŝƚ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ Ă ͚ǁŝŶŶĂďůĞ

ĐĂƐĞ͍͛

 ,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJHOVH\RXIHHOLWLVLPSRUWDQW

IRUXVWRNQRZDERXWKDQGOLQJWKHVHFDVHV"

PROMPTS:

7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGIRU\RXUZLOOLQJQHVVWRSDUWLFLSDWH

DEBRIEFING HAPPENS AFTER END OF INTERVIEW AND 

WHEN RECORDING HAS CEASED

Source*: ________ Reviewer iniƟals: ________ Page 15 revised11/14/2014 DATE:_____________

Page 213
6H[XDO9LROHQFH&DVH$WWULWLRQ

9,&7,06(59,&(6)2&86*52836(783

$ '2&80(176

There are six documents developed for the focus group: 

1. Project Overview: Should be placed at each participant’s seat prior to the beginning of 

the focus group. (Yellow). (svca flyer.pdf) 

2. Demographics Sheet (see below). 

3. Focus Group Discussion Guide: For use by the facilitator only. 

4. Focus Group Goals: Should be placed at each participant’s seat prior to the beginning of 

the focus group, under “Project Overview.” (Purple) 

5. Focus Groups Questions: (for use by facilitator only) 

6. Focus Group Worksheet A: Corresponds with focus group Question #1. (Pink) 

7. Focus Group Worksheet BCorresponds with focus group Question #5. (Green) 

% 35(3$5$7,21

The focus group will take roughly 90 minutes. Each facilitator should have: 

x A round table with enough seats for 

participants, facilitators, and observers. 

x A note taker. 

x Audio recorder and batteries. 

x Flip chart and markers. 

x At each participant’s place (in 

advance): 

3⁄4 Project Overview 

3⁄4 Focus Group Goals 

3⁄4 Pad of paper and pen. 

x Privacy separate by sight and sound 

from outside distractions. 

x Water and glasses (and/or sodas). 

& 327(17,$/3$57,&,3$176

Each group should consist of eight to ten service providers who volunteer to participate. 

1 

Page 214
This project is supported by Award No. 2012-IJ-CX-0052, awarded by the 

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJLQ6H[XDO$VVDXOW&DVHV

0XOWLVLWH5HSOLFDWLRQ5HVHDUFKRQ6H[XDO

9LROHQFH&DVH$WWULWLRQLQWKH86

THE PROJECT 

School of Criminology 

and Justice Studies 

Project Principal Investigators: 

Linda Williams 

April Pattavina 

Melissa Morabito 

Research Administrator 

Mary Frederick 

How we hope the 

study will benefit 

police and 

prosecutors — 

Document new or 

persistent challenges 

the police face in 

handling sexual assault cases. 

Understand how 

relationships between the police, 

prosecutor and victim advocacy are 

evolving over time 

with respect to 

responding to reports of sexual assault violence. 

Identify best practices that are emerging 

in the handling of 

sexual violence cases 

use by faculty,uniͲ

versity departments

and programs to inͲ

corporate mulƟdisciͲ

plinary educaƟonal

vicƟmͲfocused apͲ

proach into their curͲ

ricula.

'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJLQ6H[XDO$VVDXOW&DVHV0XOWLVLWH5HSOLFDWLRQ5HVHDUFKRQ

6H[XDO9LROHQFH&DVH$WWULWLRQLQWKH86LVGHVLJQHGWRSURYLGHXVHIXOLQIRUPDWLRQ

WRODZHQIRUFHPHQWSURVHFXWRUVYLFWLPVHUYLFHSURYLGHUVLQWKHILHOGRQIDFWRUVWKDW

LQIOXHQFHVH[XDOYLROHQFH69FDVHDWWULWLRQ

:HZLOOIROORZFDVHVIURPILUVWUHSRUWWRWKHSROLFHWKURXJKSURVHFXWLRQWREHWWHU

XQGHUVWDQGZKHUHDWWULWLRQLVOLNHO\WRRFFXU7RDFFRPSOLVKWKLVZHPXVWEHWWHU

XQGHUVWDQGWKHZRUNRISROLFHSURVHFXWRUDQGDGYRFDWHVLQWKHSURFHVV

THE STUDY 

We will be studying sexual assault case attrition in 6-8 

police departments of varying size and population served 

in urban, suburban and rural jurisdictions. This will allow 

us to: 

x Learn more about the relationship 

between prosecutors and police across 

departments 

x Consider different departmental 

structures 

x Examine the role of community 

Characteristics 

Sexual Assault Case FlowKey Decision

Points and Outcomes

Case

Outcome

Prosecutorial

Report to Decision To

Charge

Incident

Police

Arrest Conviction

Sentence

 Investigation

 Case

Clearance

 Unfounded

 Charges

Filed

 Charges

Declined

Charges

Filed

 Conviction

 Acquittal

 Dismissal

 Not Concluded

 Probation

 Jail

 Prison

For further information contact the Research Administrator at 978-934-4117 

8QLYHUVLW\RI0DVVDFKXVHWWV/RZHOO

What We Are Asking 

From Police Departments 

x To review sexual assault 

case records 

x To gain access to 

detective files for sexual 

assault cases 

x To interview detectives 

that work on sexual 

assault cases 

x To interview patrol 

officers about responding 

to calls for service 

involving sexual assault 

information 

What We Are Asking 

From the District 

Attorney’s Office 

x To collect information 

from sexual assault case 

court records originating 

from incidents reported to 

the Police Department 

x To interview prosecutors 

who work on sexual 

assault cases 

Page 215
 DEMOGRAPHICS SHEET 

Please take a moment to provide us with the following information which will be used only in 

general reports and summary documents. 

Date:____________________ 

Site:_____________________ 

What is your age? ______ 

 What is your sex ? ___ Female ____ Male 

Please classify yourself according to the following federal categories: You may choose more 

than one: 

____ Asian/ Pacific Islander 

____ Black 

____ Native American 

____ White 

____ Other, specify _________________ 

____ Choose not to identify 

$UH\RX+LVSDQLFRU/DWLQR"RIDQ\UDFHBBB1RBBB<HV

Your job title/ position : _________________________________ 

(indicate if volunteer ___ No ___Yes) 

Which of the following roles best applies to you: (check only ONE answer) 

____ practitioner 

____ advocate 

____ policy maker 

____ researcher 

In your position, how many hours do you spend doing the following each week: 

(answer each item below) 

____ hours direct service related to domestic violence 

____ hours direct service related to rape 

____ training/community education 

____ hours supervision of other staff 

____ administrative tasks 

____ policy 

____ research 

____ other ___________________________ 

Please indicate populations you serve (check all that apply) 

2 

Page 216
___________________________ 

____ batterers 

____ sex offenders 

____ victims/ survivor of physical 

violence 

____ victims/ survivors of sexual assault 

____ children 

____ Rural populations 

____ Urban populations 

____ Asian men, women or children 

____ Black men women or children 

____ Native American men women or children 

____ White men women or children 

____ Hispanic men women or children 

____ Disabled men women or children 

____ Other populations, specify: 

3 

Page 217
69&$

)2&86*5283',6&866,21*8,'(

,QWURGXFWLRQ2YHUYLHZ (2 MINUTES)

Facilitator: Welcome participants and thank them for coming. Emphasize the: 

x Importance of obtain victim service input and ideas in criminal justice and victim 

services response to reports of sexual assault. 

x Value we place on THEIR PARTICIPATION 

3DUWLFLSDQW,QWURGXFWLRQV([SHFWDWLRQV (10 MINUTES) 

Facilitator: Let’s take a minute and briefly introduce ourselves: 

x Who you are. 

x The agency and jurisdiction you are from. 

x Any expectations you might have from this focus group (record “participant 

expectations” on a flip chart). 

(Facilitator begins by introducing himself/herself). 

2YHUYLHZRI285352-(&7 (2 MINUTES) 

(One page overview should be provided to participants upon their arrival). 

Facilitator: The (color of) paper in front of you describes the key participants and goals for 

this Project. Take a moment to review this overview, and let me know if you 

have any questions. 

x Any questions? 

)RFXV*URXS*RDOV (3 MINUTES) 

Facilitator: This focus group is one in a series that have been conducted of victim services 

and advocates around the nation. 

Ask participants to refer to “goals” handout and briefly review: 

3⁄4 Are there any questions about these goals? 

3⁄4 Are there any goals you would like to add? 

*URXQG5XOHV(3 MINUTES) 

Facilitator: We have a lot of ground to cover in two hours, so let’s review some basic ground 

rules that will help us accomplish our goals: 

x Our focus group will entail a series of questions for group discussion, as well as 

individual worksheets to write down your thoughts and prompt discussion. 

x The focus group will be audio taped to maintain a record of your responses. 

x All participant communications are confidential. 

x In any focus group discussion, there are no wrong answers. Each of your ideas is 

important and valued. 

x Each participant is encouraged to participate. 

x No participant is encouraged to participate too much, to the point of negating 

opportunities for us to hear from everyone. It’s important that we hear ideas from each of 

you. 

x In order to stay within our time frame, I may have to move the group discussion forward 

at times. 

x If any of our conversations cause personal distress for any of you, please let me know, or 

feel free to leave the discussion, as needed. 

x Are there any questions, or any “ground rules” you’d like to add? (Record any additional 

ground rules on a flip chart)

4 

Page 218
69&$

)RFXV*URXS'LVFXVVLRQ4XHVWLRQV

1. What are the key issues faced by victims when reporting (or 

thinking about reporting) a sexual assault they have experienced to 

the authorities (police/ prosecutors). 

2. What supports are needed by victims? and what is available for 

victims. 

Facilitator: Hand out Worksheet A (the --- colored sheet) and allow the participants 3 minutes 

to record their thoughts prior to the group discussion. Collect worksheets upon 

completion of the focus group. 

3. What are the main barriers/ difficulties that keep these cases from 

resulting in arrest? from being prosecuted? 

4. How should law enforcement and advocates collaborate in 

reducing SVCA? 

Facilitator Probe: 

x What are the core elements for successful collaboration? 

x Describe some successful steps that have been taken to bolster SV case success 

6. What are some of the barriers to such collaboration? 

7. How should prosecutors and advocates collaborate in reducing 

SVCA? 

Facilitator: Hand out Worksheet B (the --- colored sheet) and allow the participants 3 minutes 

to record their thoughts prior to the group discussion. Collect worksheets upon 

completion of the focus group. 

* What are the core elements for successful collaboration? 

* Describe some successful steps that have been taken to bolster SV case success 

8. What are some of the barriers to such collaboration? 

9. Is there anything important you would like to add about improving 

the CJS response to SV cases 

5 

Page 219
69&$

)2&86*5283',6&866,21*2$/6

There are four goals of this focus group, which are to: 

1. Solicit input from victim services about their current involvement in -- and 

opinions about how to reduce sexual violence case attrition. 

2. Obtain focus group participants’ input regarding how services for victims 

can be improved – especially with the goal of achieving successful criminal 

justice outcomes. 

3. Determine barriers you have identified to arrest and prosecution of those 

who perpetrate sexual violence and suggestions for overcoming such barriers 

or challenges. 

4. Solicit focus group participants’ ideas on how victim services and criminal 

justice personnel can collaborate to promote their common interests and 

goals, and to better assist victims of sexual assault. 

6 

Page 220
69&$

)2&86*52833$57,&,3$17:25.6+((7$

1. What are the 3 biggest barriers that result in NO ARREST? 

a. _______________________________________________ 

b. _______________________________________________ 

c. _______________________________________________ 

2. What are the 3 biggest barriers that result in NO PROSECUTION? 

a. _______________________________________________ 

b. _______________________________________________ 

c. _______________________________________________ 

7 

Page 221
69&$

)2&86*52833$57,&,3$17:25.6+((7%

How should ADVOCATES AND CJS collaborate in reducing SVCA? 

* What are the core elements for successful collaboration? 

* Please briefly summary any ideas you have below: 

8 

Page 222