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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Prosecution Strategies in Domestic Violence

Felonies: Telling the Story of Domestic

Violence, Executive Summary

Author(s): Carolyn C. Hartley Ph.D. ; Roxann Ryan J.D.

Document No.: 194074

Date Received: April 2002

Award Number: 95-WT-NX-0003

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

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
>. 

PROPEEi-77w'Y OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

bckvilie, MD 20849-6000 - 

.J' - 

Prosecution Strategies in Domestic Violence Felonies: 194'07tl 

Telling the Story of Domestic Violence 

Executive Summary 

April, 1998 

A project conducted by: 

Carolyn Copps Hartley, Ph.D. 

University of Iowa, School of Social Work 

Roxann Ryan, J.D. 

State of Iowa Attorney General's Office 

for the: 

National Institute of Justice 

of the 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

This project was funded under Grant Number 95-WT-NX-0003 from the National Institute of 

J'US~CZ, Vice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

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.
0 Summary an1 

Prosecution Strategies 1 

Objectives of this Study 

Evidentiary constraints, myths and misconceptions about domestic violence, women's 

perceived lack of credibility, and a tendency to view domestic violence cases as less serious than 

stranger assaults all present significant challenges to prosecuting domestic violence related cases. 

This study identified the trial strategies used by the prosection and defense in domestic violence 

related felony cases. Trial strategies were identified by examining the trial transcripts of a 

sample of 40 domestic violence-related murder and non-murder felonies in the state of Iowa. 

Cases were analyzed to determine general prosecution and defense themes and strategies. 

Background and Purpose 

The criminal justice system has only recently begun to respond to domestic violence as a 

public offense. Although wife beating was declared illegal in all states in 1920,' domestic 

violence was largely ignored in the criminal justice system.* The advent of mandatory arrest for 

domestic abuse: has resulted in a dramatic rise in prosecutions in many jurisdiction^.^ 

To date, studies of the prosecution of domestic violence cases are limited to charging 

decisions.' No study has examined prosecution or defense strategies in domestic violence cases. 

This study entailed an in-depth, qualitative analysis of the trial strategies used by the prosecution 

and defense in domestic violence-related felony cases. 

Difficulties Prosecuting Domestic Violence-Related Cases 

Domestic violence-related cases are often viewed as notoriously difficult to prosecute,6 in 

-* ', 

part because our criminal justice system is not structured to respond well to domestic violencerelated crimes. One reason for this difficulty in responding has to do with how our laws and 

0 rules of evidence are written. Our legal system is based on charging individuals for "discrete 

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' 

Prosecution Strategies 2 a events." A man may batter his partner for years, but is often charged for only one abuse event. 

Thus, the legal process takes the assault out of the context of the larger abusive relationship. Our 

rules of evidence limit evidence of previous violence (other acts evidence) between the domestic 

partners that can be admitted at trial. These rules also restrict the admission of evidence of a 

defendant's character or violent nature. However, many domestic violence experts and 

prosecutors agree that evidence of prior abuse plays an important role in prosecuting these cases.7 

The limitations on other-act and character evidence can have a significant impact in domestic 

violence prosecutions. Jurors may not be able to hear the evidence that gives context to the 

violent relationship. 

A second reason for the difficulty in prosecuting domestic abuse cases involves a lack of 

understanding of domestic abuse dynamics on the part of fact finders. The jury makes all 

decisions about the credibility of the witnesses and evidence. Thus, it is the jury's responsibility 

e 

to evaluate the evidence presented and determine if the prosecution has successfully proven the 

elements of a given charge.* 

Myths and misconceptions about domestic violence abound in the general p~pulation.~ 

Domestic violence victims are perceived as weak or responsible for the abuse. Many people do 

not understand why a battered woman does not leave the relationship when the violence begins 

and are often unable to comprehend the power and control a batterer exerts over the victim. 

They fail to understand that a single incident of abuse is part of a longstanding pattern of 

psychological control and physical violence. In general, individuals without personal experience 

with domestic violence have a very difficult time conceiving of violence by intimate others. 

0 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 3 

It is from this uninformed group of individuals that a prosecutor will seat a jury. In fact, 

any potential juror who has personal knowledge of or experience with domestic violence, and 

therefore has some understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence, is often struck for cause. 

The defense counsel may also use a peremptory strike to remove that juror. Thus, jurors 

selected in a domestic violence trial may have misconceptions regarding domestic violence that 

may interfere with their ability to decide the case.'' 

Domestic violence cases also are difficult to prosecute bscausz of the perceived lack of 

credibility of women as witnesses. Assessing witness credibility is an important part of the trial 

process. Yet women, who make up the majority of domestic violence victims, are often seen as 

"less credible" witnesses in the criminal justice system." 

Assessing victidwitness credibility in domestic violence-related cases presents a difficult 

challenge. Domestic violence is typically a hidden crime. Batterers often isolate their victims 

from others, and are not likely to batter the victim in front of witnesses. Because of this isolation 

and manipulation, many victims do not tell others about the abuse. Therefore, there is no one to 

corroborate the victim's account of the abuse. Coping behaviors of abuse victims, such as not 

resisting when the batterer forces sex, when taken out of context, or when evaluated by someone 

who does not understand the dynamics of domestic abuse, may appear strange or unexplainable. 

Thus, the credibility of the victim's testimony is likely to be significantly undermined when 

presented without the context of the larger abusive relationship and an understanding of abuse 

dynamics. 

e 

Finally, there are several indications that domestic violence cases are not taken as 

seriously as other criminal cases. In making arrest decisions, police officers have been shown to 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 4 0 view domestic violence cases as less serious than other types of assaults.** Prosecutors 

traditionally have been reluctant to prosecute these cases, reporting significantly lower 

prosecution rates for domestic violence cases, and making comments suggesting that domestic 

violence is not as serious as other forms of vi01ence.l~ Judges, too, have de-emphasized the 

seriousness of domestic violence cases.I4 

Prosecution Themes 

Three prosecution themes were present in every case, with one theme getting primary 

emphasis in a case. 

(1) Proof of the elements: “This was a crime.” Prosecutors sought to show that 

domestic violence is a serious public offense, or that the defendant’s actions should be punished. 

(2) Proof of identity: “The defendant is responsible.” Prosecutors presented this 

theme in several ways: a) it was the defendant who committed the criminal acts; b) the brutal 

0 

nature of the attack or the defendant’s lack of concern about the victim show his culpability; c) 

the defendant controlled the relationship, and violence was his means of control; or d) under the 

law, words alone cannot “provoke” physical violence. 

(3) Proof of credibility: “The State’s evidence is credible.” Victims and offenders 

often tell different stories in domestic violence cases, therefore the prosecutor would focus on 

indicators of the victim’s credibility, or on the inconsistencies or unsubstantiated claims made by 

the defendant. 

Proving the Prosecution’s Case by “Telling the Story of Violence” 

In proving the elements of the crime, prosecutors generally seemed to “tell the story” of 

the violence. Sometimes the story included a history of abuse; other times the story involved 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 5 

only the incident of violence that was charged. Regardless of the scope, however, prosecutors 

used storytelling techniques to present the evidence. 

The “story” ofien began with a witness -- the victim, an eyewitness, an investigating 

officer, or an examining physician -- who could give a graphic account of the events surrounding 

the crime. Subsequent witnesses filled in more details about the story. Prosecutors followed a 

pattern in having the witness “tell the story.” Prosecutors set the scene by establishing the 

physical setting: the location, the time of day, the type of weather, the lighting. 

Then prosecutors elicited a step-by-step repZay ofevents, rich in detail, about what 

occurred. Asking a series of questions, prosecutors drew out the story of the events: what the 

witness saw, heard and felt, including the witness’s emotional reaction to the events. In this stepby-step replay of events, many prosecutors focused on the language used by the witness. If the 

witness used a particularly graphic or descriptive word or phrase, the prosecutor reinforced the 

testimony by repeating the words when asking another question, or by making reference to the 

powerful description later in the testimony. 

e 

In addition, prosecutors often “illustrated” the testimony with physical evidence. For 

example, when the witness described the weapon used, the prosecutor produced the weapon as an 

exhibit and asked the witness to describe or demonstrate how it was used. Prosecutors also 

brought the story to life by using photographs of the victim or the scene, diagrams of the scene, 

and tangible objects, like bloody clothing, seized in the investigation. 

The stories also included discussion of motiues. VsudIy, the prosecutor tried to show 

what motivated the defendant to act --jealousy, rage, or a need to control. Sometimes the 

prosecutor also tried to show the victim’s motive in reporting the abuse. Highlighting the 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 6 

victim’s motive usually was in response to or in anticipation of a defense strategy painting the 

victim as a liar or a vengeful person. Many prosecutors tried to establish that the victim had little 

to gain fiom the criminal justice system, or that the victim’s primary motivation was simply to 

see justice served through the court system. 

Anticipating Defenses 

Part of an effective trial strategy is to anticipate likely defenses by presenting evidence 

that undercuts or contradicts the anticipated defense.” The prosecution strategy is likely to be 

based, at least in part, on the defense they expect to be presented. Although we did not interview 

the prosecutors involved in the cases in this study, the trial transcripts suggest that prosecutors 

generally were aware of the likely defenses, and structured their prosecution strategies in 

anticipation of those defenses. 

Defense Themes and Strategies 

Defense attorneys generally focused on one of four defense themes, although there was 

overlap in some cases. 

(1) Self-defense or Provocation. Self-defense was an attempt to show that the 

defendant’s behavior resulted fiom defending himself against attack. Provocation was connected 

to this notion of self-defense. The defense used this theme to show that, particularly in the 

murder cases, the defendant lacked some element of the crime, specifically intent. The crime 

occurred in the heat of the moment, was not planned, or “things got out of hand.” 

(2) Going-for-a-Lesser-Charge. ‘The going-for-a-lesser-charge defense typically found 

the defense challenging various elements of a specific charge. The defense did not deny that the 

0 defendant did something - he physically assaulted her, but did not sexually assault her; he killed 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 7 

her but he did not premeditate the crime -just that it was not as serious as charged. 

(3) Diminished Responsibility. Diminished responsibility defenses can be thought of as 

a specific type of going-for-a-lesser-charge defense. In diminished responsibility, the defense 

typically tried to show that the defendant was either not responsible or less responsible for his 

actions because he was incapacitated in some fashion at the time of the offense fiom alcohol, 

drugs or a psychological disorder. 

(4) “Didn’t Do It.” The final defense theme was an attempt to maintain the defendant’s 

innocence by establishing sufficient reasonable doubt about whether the defendant committed the 

crime or whether the injuries were accidental. 

As with the prosecution themes, there is some overlap among defense themes, but 

generally one theme was primary. 

Defense Strategies 

0 

The defense used a variety of strategies to create or support the above-mentioned defense 

themes. These defense strategies are divided into five categories: 

(1) The Relationship was Fine. In many cases the defense focused on showing that the 

relationship between victim and defendant was fine. To support this claim, friends and family 

testified that the relationship was normal, happy, or status quo. Defense counsel contrasted the 

victim’s testimony about violence with the other testimony about the “happy relationship’’ in 

order to discredit the victim’s testimony. These strategies were used to establish that either the 

offender did not commit the offense or, in going for a lesser charge, the offense was out of ’ - 

character given all the other positive aspects of the relationship. The defense also showed that 

the relationship was fine through omission - if the victim had not told anyone about problems in 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 8 

the relationship or about abuse she was experiencing, then the relationship was fine. 

(2) Character Enhancement of the Abuser. The intent of this character enhancement 

was to imply that the defendant was unlikely or unable to abuse because of his good character. 

This was accomplished by showing that the defendant was generally a “good guy,” he loved the 

victim, he was cooperative with police, he did not intend for anything bad to happen, he never 

threatened the victim, and/or he was remorseful after the offense. 

(3) Evidence Presented in Trial was Faulty, Misleading, or Inconclusive. In cases 

where the defense strategy was to go for a lesser charge or to argue that the defendant did not 

commit the crime, the defense focused on challenging the prosecution’s evidence by establishing 

that there were no witnesses to the crime, there was no or poor physical evidence linking the 

defendant to the crime, or the victim’s physical injuries were not obvious or very serious. 

(4) Police Botched the Investigation. Although a poor police investigation was evident 

a 

in only a handful of cases, when there were police procedure problems, the defense was 

meticulous in their attack of the investigation. These attacks included accusing the police of 

contaminating the crime scene, failing to collect certain evidence, and challenging the chain of 

custody of evidence. 

(5) Attacking the Victim’s Character. One of the most common and aggressive 

strategies used by defense attorneys involved an attack on the victim in some form: either a 

general character assassination of the victim, or more specifically turning behavior that the victim 

engaged in during the relationship or during the abuse against her. 

The general character assassination involved attacking overall victim character by 

0 dredging up any negative behavior from the victim’s past, such as mental health history, 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 9 0 emotional problems, andor substance abuse. This character disparagement of victims varied, 

with the defense asserting such claims as: the victim was a ''strong willed person who wasn't 

easily pushed around," the victim had emotional problems, she could not control her temper, she 

had sex with other men, or she drank or used drugs. 

Turning the victim's behavior in the relationship or during the abuse against her against 

her involved questioning why she not attempt to leave the violent relationship, or "call for help" 

during the offense. The intent ofthis attack was to challenge the victim's credibility and/or 

motives. 

Defense Strategies, Abuse Dynamics and Myths About Domestic Violence 

With these strategies, the defense manipulated many common abuse dynamics and myths 

@ about domestic violence. One dynamic is social isolation of the victim. This isolation helps the 

batterer ensure that his victim is cut off from others who might help her see an outsider's 

perspective of what the abuser is doing.I6 The isolation also ensures few if any witnesses to the 

abuse, and reduces opportunities for the woman to disclose the abuse to others. The defense 

capitalized on this isolation dynamic in their claims of no witnesses to the offense, no evidence 

of prior abuse, claims that the relationship was fine, and no evidence that the defendant 

threatened the victim. 

The defense strategy showing that %e relationship was fine" manipulates the myth that 

violence and love are incompatible; if the relationship is fine, there cannot be violence. The 

"relationship is fine" strategy also capitalizes on social isolation and privacy dynamics. The 

combination of the abuse occurring in private and the victim being isolated fiom others assures 

there are no witnesses to testifjl about problems in the relationship. 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 10 

Batterer minimization is another common abuse dynamic. Batterers use a variety of 

tactics to avoid responsibility for the abuse, ranging from outright denial, to minimizing the 

abuse or its impact on the victim, to blaming the victim, drugs or alcohol, or other life 

circumstances for the abuse." The four defense themes used all fall within the common denial or 

minimization tactics used by batterers. Self-defense or provocation claims attributed the 

violence to the victim's behavior ("I was provoked," "I was defending myself'). The going-fora-lesser charge defense often minimized the impact of the abuse on the victim when arguing that 

the defendant did something, it just was "not that bad." Blaming the abuse on alcohol or drugs or 

other life circumstances ("I have PTSD from serving in the military") were common topics in the 

diminished capacity defenses. In these cases, the defendant was denying responsibility for the 

abuse due to some incapacitation.18 The "didn't do it" defense involved an outright denial of the 

offense. 

Attacking weaknesses in the prosecution's case and arguments that the victim's injuries 

were not obvious or very serious are also minimizations of the abuser's behavior. Attacking 

evidence attempts to deflect responsibility off the abuser, and diminishing injuries is a common 

tactic by batterers to trivialize the effects of the abuse on their victim^.'^ 

The defense manipulation of abuse dynamics was particularly apparent in the victim 

character assassination. Batterers commonly attack their victim's character as a way of 

maintaining their power and control.2o During the trials, the victim's weaknesses were 

maximized in an effort to undermine her credibility and challenge the prosecution's evidence, In 

murder cases, this character assassination was easier to accomplish because the victim was not 0 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 11 

available to rebut these claims. The defense sometimes used character assassination to suggest 

that the crime was not as serious (a lesser charge should be considered) because of the victim’s 

shortcomings. The defense attack of the victim’s lack of self-defense or protective action taken 

before or during the offense manipulates the abuse dynamic of victim fear. The reason an abused 

woman might not try to escape is that she was experiencing real fear based on not necessarily 

what the abuser was doing at the moment, but on what she knew he was capable of doing.2’ 

Jury Decision Making 

To understand the potential implications of this exploitation of abuse dynamics by the 

defense, one needs to consider these findings in light of research on how jurors make decisions 

about guilt or innocence in criminal trials. 

When making decisions, a decision maker uses a vahe system to rank the relevant 

attributes of each decision alternative. Different values will be ascribed to each attribute 

according to the decision maker’s value system.22 The more complicated the decision, the greater 

the role of the decision maker’s value system. Characteristics of individual jurors provide the 

“internal” sources of data in criminal trials.23 The jurors will consider the external sources of 

data (the information presented at trial) in light of their internal thought processes when making a 

decision about guilt or innocence. Jurors come to the task without knowledge of what they will 

be asked to decide, or what information they will be provided in making the decision. Jurors are 

presented with bits of information in various forms, at different times, with differing degrees of 

formality and varying amounts of explanation. The jurors must take all of the idormation they 

receive in the trial and, using their internal value systems to interpret and understand the 

information, they must make a decision about guilt or inn0cence.2~ 

0 

@ 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 12 

The "story model" of decision making in the trial procedure is the most well developed 

model of jury decision making?' In their story model, Pennington and Hastie describe the 

process by listing the various "tasks" of jurors in reaching a decision: encoding trial contents, 

establishing judgment categories based on jury instructions, selecting only admissible evidence 

presented at trial, and constructing a plausible sequence of events (a story) that they then evaluate 

for believability and test whether the story supports a finding of 

Pennington and Hastie posit that jurors iiill construct a story, based on the evidence 

presented and the juror's own life experience. That is, jurors may "fill in the blanks" of the 

story, consciously or unconsciously, based on their own life experiences. 

Juror Decision Making and the Dynamics of Abuse 

a The theories about the juror decision making process have important implications for 

domestic violence-related prosecutions. These theories suggest that jurors' decisions in domestic 

violence cases will depend on their preconceived notions about domestic violence. Their 

knowledge about domestic violence may affect their assessment of the decision alternatives. 

Thus, if jurors accept the commonly held myths about domestic violence, they may "fill in the 

blanks" with an unrealistic view of the violent relationship, and their evaluation of the evidence 

may be skewed. 

Thus, jurors need information about the context of the abusive relationship, because 

domestic violence is not a commonly understood phenomenon that would make decision making 

routine for them. Rather, it may be necessary to explain how violent relationships differ fiom 

non-violent relationships, how the violence affects interactions, and how victims put in a 

powerless position may respond differently from persons in a more egalitarian relationship. 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 13 a Given that many of the attributes of a violent relationship are unlike those of a non-violent 

relationship, jurors may be asked to assess evidence that they genuinely believe that they 

understand, but that they actually do not. 

Prosecution Strategies, Telling the Story, and the Dynamics of Abuse 

What is commonplace experience for domestic violence victims may not be 

commonplace for jurors who hear the evidence. Therefore, it is up to the prosecution to assist the 

jurors in understanding these dynamics through “telling the story” of domestic violence. Often 

the story told is a limited story about an isolated incident. In cases where the offender is a 

stranger, this is an accurate story, because the crime is an isolated incident. In the case of 

domestic violence, however, the incident by itself is not an adequate unit of information. 

Context information about the relationship or prior abuse completes the story and can dispel 

some myths about domestic violence. 

The Role of Expert Witnesses in Educating Jurors 

a 

The use of expert testimony would be the most direct method for “educating” jurors about 

the dynamics of domestic abuse. Expert witnesses on domestic violence can be called to explain 

common behaviors that may seem like irrational or atypical responses to violence, but are 

understandable when taken in context. The advantage of using experts is that jurors may 

recognize their limited knowledge about domestic violence and set aside any biases. 

If it is carefully circumscribed and combined with other prosecution strategies, expert 

testimony can enhance the prosecutiorr’s case by educating jurors about a phenomenon that they 

did not realize was foreign to them. Thus, jurors may mistakenly consider some evidence to 

involve a routine decision, when in fact, their lack of knowledge about this type of relationship 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 14 e 

means that the evidence requires a more in-depth analysis of an unfamiliar decision problem. 

The expert testimony of domestic violence advocates helps the jury to understand the 

context of the larger abusive relationship and the particular rationale behind the victim’s actions. 

Prosecutors should be careful in choosing a well-qualified and knowledgeable expert, and should 

design a trial strategy that tells the story of domestic violence. 

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.
0 Prosecution Strategies 15 

1. Isabel Marcus, "Terrorism on the Home," in The Public Nature of Private Violence: 

The Discovery of Domestic Abuse, ed. Martha Fineman Albertson and Roxanne Mykitiuk (New 

York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 11-35. 

2. Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 

3. Lawrence Sherman, Policing Domestic Violence (New York: Free Press, 1992). 

4. David Ford, "Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource: A Note on Empowering 

Women in Violent Conjugal Relationships," Law & Society 25 (1 991): 3 13-3 14. 

5. Linda McGuire, Domestic Abuse Prosecution Handbook (Des Moines, IA: Iowa 

Prosecuting Attorneys Council, 1994). Citing Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7- 

103 and National Prosecution Standard, Standard 9.1 et seq. (NDAA 1977). 

6. Lisa G. Lerman, Prosecution of Spouse Abuse: Innovations in Criminal Justice 

Response (Washington D.C.: Center for Women Policy Studies, 198 1); Margaret A. 

Rosenbaum, The Prosecution of Domestic Violence: An Overview," The Florida Bar Journal 

68 (1994): 52-55; Stuart H. Baggish & Christopher G. Frey, Domestic Physical Abuse: A 

Proposed Use for Evidence of Specific Similar Acts in Criminal Prosecutions to Corroborate 

Victim Testimony, I' The Florida Bar Journal 68 (1 994): 57-61. 

0 

7. Rosenbaum (n.6 above), p. 53. 

8. The elements of the crime refer to the components of the crime that are set out by the 

criminal statute. In proving the elements of a crime, the prosecution has to show that the act is 

prohibited by law, that it involved criminal intent, and that any injuries sustained were the result 

of the defendant's actions. 

9. Mildred D. Pagelow, Family Violence (New York: Praeger, 1984): pp. 301-324. 

10. Iowa Judicial Department, Iowa Domestic Abuse Benchbook (1 994). 

1 1. Lynn Hecht Schafran, "Credibility in the Courts: Why is There a Gender Gap." The 

Judges Journal 34 (1995): 5-9,40-42. 

12. Eve Buzawa, Thomas L. Austin and Carl G. Buzawa, "Responding to Crimes of 

Violence Against Women: Gender Differences Versus Organizational Imperatives," Crime and 

Delinquency 4 1 (1 995): 443-446. 

13. Robert C. Davis, Arthur J. Lurigio and Wesley G. Skogan, Victims of Crime (2d Ed.) 

0 (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997); Margaret E. Martin, "Mandatory Arrest for Domestic Violence: 

The Courts' Response," Criminal Justice & Behavior 19 (1 994): 2 12-227; Jane W. Ellis, 

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.
Prosecution Strategies 16 

“Prosecutorial Discretion to Charge in Cases of Spousal Assault: A Dialogue,” Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 75 (1 984):56-102. 

a 

14. Davis, Lurigio and Skogan (n. 13 above). 

15. McGuire (n.5 above), pp. 9-13 to 9-19. 

16. Catherine Kirkwood, Leaving Abusive Partners (London: Sage, 1993). 

17. Kerry Healey, Christine Smith, and Chris O’Sullivan, Barterer Intervention: 

Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1998). 

18. Dmald G. Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal 

Justice Perspectives, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1 995). 

19. Ibid. 

20. Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), p.74. 

2 1. Kirkwood (n. 16 above) p. 64. 

22. Ola Svenson, “A Psychological Process Perspective on Decision Making” in 0 Computer-Aided Decision Analysis, ed. Stuart S. Nagel. (Westport, CT.: Quorum Books, 1993). 

23. Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, “Juror Decision-Making Models: The 

Generalization Gap,” Psychological Bulletin 89 (1 98 1): 246-287. 

24. Ibid. 

25. Reid Hastie, Inside the Juror (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 

26. Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, “The Story model for Juror Decision Making” in 

Imide the Juror, ed. Reid.Hastie (London: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 192. 

PHWPkRTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Eox 6000 

kckville, MD 20849-6000 

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.