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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts From 

the Kings County Experience 

Author(s): Lisa Newmark ; Mike Rempel ; Kelly Diffily ; 

Kamala M. Kane 

Document No.: 191861 

Date Received: January 2002 

Award Number: 97-WT-VX-0005 

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.
PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 _- 

Rockville. MD 20849-6000 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the 

Kings County Experience 

Report Submitted to the Center for Court Innovation 

and the National Institute of Justice 

? 

Lisa Newmark 

Mike Rernpel 

Kelly Diffily 

Kamala Mallik Kane 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington DC 20037 

October 2001 

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 of Contents 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... IV 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. VI 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. vi1 

Key Elements of the Court Model ................................................................................................................... vii 

Development, Operation, and Evolution of the Court Model .......................................................................... VIII 

... 

Policy and Operational Challenges ................................................................................................................. ix 

The Impact of the FOVC Model on Early Cases .. ........................................................................ 

THE KINGS COUNTY FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT MODEL ......................................... 1 

A Network of Criminal Justice and Social Service Partner Agencies ................................................................ 1 

Partner Agency Profile: Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court ................................................................... 2 

Partner Agency Profile: The Center for Court Innovation ......................................................................................... 3 

Partner Agency Profile: Kings County District Attorney's Office 

Domestic Violence Bureau and Counseling Services Unit ................................................... 4 

Partner Agency Profile: Safe Horizon's Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Unit ..................................................... 6 

Partner Agency Profile: Department of Probation .................................................................................................... 7 

Partner Agency Profile: New York Center for Neuropsychology and 

Forensic Behavioral Science (New York Forensics) ............................................................ 8 

Partner Agency Profile: Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence ............................................................................... 9 

Partner Agency Profile: Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime ........................................................................... 10 

The Specialized Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 11 

Trained and Dedicated Personnel ................................................................................................................. 12 

The Judges' Role .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 

Vertical Processing and Standard Practices .................................................................................................. 14 

Enhanced Case information Flow .................................................................................................................. 14 

Figure 1 . Information Flow among Court and Partner Agencies ............................................................................ 15 

The Technology Application ........................................................................................................................................... 15 

Defendant Monitoring and Accountability ..................................................................................................... 18 

Victim Advocacy and Services .................. ................................. ............................................................ 19 

Recognition for the Court ......................................................................................................... 

GERMINATION. IMPLEMENTATION. AND EVOLUTION OF THE COURT MODEL ........................ 22 

Roots of the Felony Domestic Violence Court Model ..................................................................................... 22 

Local Influences in the Development of the Model ......................................................................................................... 23 

Context in Which the Model Began Implementation ...................................................................................... 25 

How Implementation of the Model Changed Case Processing ....................................................................... 25 

Figure 2 . Timeline of Key Events Prior to the Court's Opening .......................................................................... 26 

Contextual Changes Since the Model Was Implemented ............................................................................... 27 

Figure 3 . Processing of Felony Domestic Violence Cases in Brooklyn Before the Court's Opening ...................... 28 

Figure 4 . Processing of Felony Domestic Violence Cases in Brooklyn Since the Court's Opening ........................ 29 

Caseload Changes and Case Processing Trends ............ .................................................. 30 

Figure 5 . Timeline of Key Events Since the Court's Opening .......................................................................... 31 

Caseload and Case Processing Statistics ............................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 8 . Changes in FDVC's Caseload ...................................................................................................... 34 

Felony Order of Protection Violation as Top Indictment Charge ................................................... 34 

Figure 10 Trends in Felony Arrests in Kings County ............................................................................... 35 

Figure 9 Percent of Open Domestic Violence Cases which Had 

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.
Figure 11 . Percent of Open Domestic Violence Cases Older than 180 Days .................................................. 36 

Figure 13 . Trends in Sentencing on Guilty Pleas and Convictions .................................................................... 38 

.................................... 38 

Figure 12 . Trends in Types of Disposition ................................................................................................. 37 

The Court's Response to Caseload Changes ................................................... 

Expansions of the Court Model and Plans for the Future ............................................................................... 39 

POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES ........................................................................ 41 

Demands on the Court's Resources .............................................................................................................. 41 

The Need to Sustain the Director Role .................................................................................. 

Policy and Resource Issues Facing the District Attorney's Office and Safe Horizon ....................................... 42 

Gaps in Defendant Services ......................................................................................................................... 43 

Concerns From the Defense Bar ................................................................................................................... 43 

THE IMPACT OF THE FDVC MODEL ON CASE PROCESSING AND 

OUTCOMES IN EARLY CASES (1997) ........................................................................................ 45 

The Samples .......... .................................................................................................................................. 45 

Characteristics of Felony Domestic Violence Cases in Brooklyn .................................................................... 46 

Characteristics of Defendants. Victims. Relationships. and Histories ............................................................................ 46 

Characteristics of Defendants. Victims. Relationships. and Abuse Histories ....................................... 46 

The Criminal Incident and System Responses ............................................................................................................... 50 

Predictors of Arrest Charge Severity from OLS Regressions ................................................................. 52 

Predictors of Indictment Charge Severity from OLS Regressions ....................................................... 53 

........................................................ 53 

Supreme Court Case Processing in the Pre.Disposition Phase .......................................................... 54 

Victim Advocacy 54 

Orders of Protection ..................................................................................................................................................... 55 

Pre.Disposition Release Status ..................................................................................................................................... 55 

Predictors of Pre.Disposition Release from Logistic Regressions ........................................................ 56 

Predictors of Rejailing from Logistic Regressions ................................................................................ 56 

Release Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Case Processing Statistics .......................................................................................................................................... 57 

Predictors of Time from Supreme Court Arraignment to Disposition from OLS Regressions ............... 58 

Table 1. 

Table 2 . Prior Criminal History of the Defendant 49 

Table 3 . Current Criminal Offense ..................................................................................................................... 51 

Table 4 . 

Table 5 . 

............................................................................................ 

he Impact of the FDVC Model on Case Processirlg ......................... * 

Table 6 . 

......................................................................................................................................................... 

Table 7 . 

Table 8 . 

Table 9 . 

Impact of FDVC on Case Disposition and Sentencing Practices ...................................................... 

Table 10 . Disposition Information ....................................................................................................... 

Case Dispositions ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 

Table 11 . Predictors of Conviction from Logistic Regressions .............................................................................. 60 

Table 12 . Predictors of Guilty Plea Disposition from Logistic Regressions .......................................................... 61 

Table 13 . Analyses of Disposition Charges ........................................................................................................ 62 

............................................................ 64 

Table 14 . Sentencing Practices ......................................................... ............................................................ 64 

Table 15 . Predictors of Receiving a Prison Sentence from Logistic Regressions .................................................. 65 

Table 16 . Predictors of Program Mandate as Part of Sentence from Logistic Regressions .................................. 66 

Impacts of FDVC on Probation Compliance and Reported Recidivism .......................................................... 66 

Probation Violations ................................................................................................................................................ 67 

Table 17 . Post-Sentence Violations by Probationers .......................................................................................... 68 

Repeat Arrests ........................................................................................................................................................ 68 

Table 18 . Prevalence of Criminal Recidivism ..................................................................................................... 69 

Table 19 . Predictors of Pre.Disposition Re-Arrests from Logistic Regressions ................................................ 70 

Table 20 . Cox Regressions on Post-Disposition Repeat Arrests ........................................................................ 71 

Figure 14 . The Impact of Criminal History on Time to First New Arrest: 

Percentage with One or More New Arrests up to 18 Months after Disposition 3r Release ................ 73 

Types of Charges in Additional Arrests ................................................................................................................. 73 

Top Charge of First New Arrest for Defendants Arrested at any Time 

within 30 Months of the Target Domestic Violence Arresta ........................................................... 74 

Conclusions and Recommendations from the Impact Analysts ..................................................................... 74 

.. 

Sentencing Practices for Convictions ........................................................... 

Table 21 II 

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.
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 77 

APPENDIX A: TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION DOCUMENTS: 

COURT-PARTNER LINK SCHEMATIC, SUMMARY OF 

MODULES, AND SAMPLE SCREENS 

APPENDIX B: MEDIA ARTICLES ON THE COURT 

APPENDIX C: POPULATION IDENTIFICATION, SAMPLE SELECTION, 

AND ANALYSES OF POSSIBLE SELECTION BIASES 

Table 22. Analyses for Possible Sample Selection Biases: Criminal History and 

Recidivism Comparisons of FDVC and Criminal Contempt Only Cases: 

Sampled vs. Unsampled Eligible 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.
@4c k now I e d g m e n t s 

This report was prepared with input from a number of court and partner agency personnel in Brooklyn, 

and their valuable participation and insights are gratefully acknowledged. We conducted interviews with: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

b 

0 

0: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Honorable Michael Pesce, Honorable John Leventhal, and Honorable Matthew D’Emic of the Kings 

County Supreme Court 

James Imperatrice, Chief Clerk Criminal Term, Kings County Supreme Court 

Michael Magnani, Administrator for Special Projects. Office of Court Administration 

Chris Gillespie, Initialization Clerk, Office of Court Administration 

Resource Coordinators Jezebel Cook and Sharon Lastique of the Felony Domestic Violence Court 

parts 

Lisa Smith, Wanda Lucibello, Deirdre Bialo-Padin, and Linda Rodriguez Wancel of the Kings County 

District Attorney’s Office 

Ovita Williams, Kathy Charlap, and Sarah Ellis of the District Attorney’s Office, Domestic Violence 

Bureau 

Chnsty Gibney Carey, Lauren Ginsberg and Peggy Grauwiler of Safe Horizon (formerly Victim Services) 

Joel Weinstein and Judy Rubin of the Department of Probation, Intensive Supervised Probation 

Branch 

Ted Bunch, Juan Ramos, and Angel Vargas of Alternatives to Violence 

Dan Sanders and Jack Sarmanian of the New York City Alternative Assistance Program 

John Aponte of the New York Center for Neuropsychology and Forensic Behavioral Science 

Ken Linn and Judy Mock of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime 

Lisa Schriebersdorf, Laura Saft, Stephen Dean, and Diana Boyer of Brooklyn Defender Services 

Richard Ochetti of the Legal Aid Society 

Rubi Singh-Lochner. formerly of the Federation of Employment and Guidance Services 

Emily Sack, Michele Sviridoff, Christine Sisario, Nora Puffet, Diana Brandt, and Greg Steinberg of 

the Center for Court hnovation 

We also appreciate the assistance of those who provided the many resources used in this research. Judge 

Michael Pesce, James Imperatrice, and Joseph Cannella of the Office of Court Administration graciously 

provided the on-site researcher with office space and access to court case files. Wanda Lucibello and Andrea 

McIntosh of the Domestic Violence Bureau of the District Attorney’s Office provided space to review case 

files and assistance in identifying domestic violence cases valid for the sample. Additional assistance in 

identifying sample cases was provided by Cliff Dinadio of the Office of Court Administration. Randy Dinadio 

of the Office of Court Administration has provided weekly statistics on the FDVC dating back to the start of m he Court. Staff in the file rooms in both the Supreme Court and the District Attorneys Office helped in 

obtaining case files, and for this we’d like to thank Monte Rauchwerger, Phil Favale and Millie Perez of the 

Office of Court Administration. and Thomas McDonald, Corinne Hayes. Anthony Alvario, Robert Young and 

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.
Rebecca Huertas of the District Attorneys Office. Janet Fink, Deputy Counsel of the Office of Court Administration provided us with legal summaries on domestic violence legislation. Janet Fink, Elaine Best, and 

Wendy Farley of the Office of Court Administration were very helpful in obtaining Domestic Violence 

Registry data and other information. Steve Greenstein, Bruce Frederick, and Susan Jacobsen at the state’s 

Division of Criminal Justice Services were very helpful in obtaining criminal history and recidivism data. 

Fredda Weinberg, formerly of the Center for Court Innovation, provided invaluable assistance and support in 

developing our database. Paul Dynia, formerly of the District Attorneys Office, and Hung-en Sung of the 

District Attorney’s Office were helpful in obtaining data from the District Attorney’s Office. Four interns, Jon 

Marelli, Amy Scriba, Lynn Bauer, and Shireen Barday, graciously donated their time to assist in collecting 

data. 

research and producing this report. We thank Michele Sviridoff and Emily Sack of the Center for Court 

Innovation for their guidance and support, and appreciate the many reports and other documents prepared by 

Emily from which some sections of this report have been drawn. We also appreciate assistance provided by 

Nora Puffet and Christine Sisario. We are grateful for assistance from the Urban Institute: research support 

provided by Alexa Hirst and Jake Rosenfeld, as well as editorial, graphics. and production assistance from 

David Williams, Adele Harrell, Dionne Davis, Nicole Brewer, and Blaine Liner. 

This research was supported under award #97-WT-VX-0005 from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US. Department of Justice. We appreciate 

the support of our NIJ Project Monitor, Bernie Auchter. 

The views expressed are those of the authors, and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its 

trustees, or its funders. 

Staff at the Center for Court Innovation and the Urban Institute have been very helpful in conducting 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.
This evaluation documents key features of Brooklyn’s Felony Domestic Violence Court model, and traces 

its development. implementation, challenges, evolution, and expansion. We also conducted a pre/post evaluation of how the model influences case processing, outcomes, and recidivism. We found that the existence of 

the specialized court seemed to change the types of cases entering it. in that prosecutors were more likely to 

indict cases with less severe police charges than before. This may have influenced case processing, disposition, and sentencing patterns. FDVC victims were more likely to be assigned an advocate, and defendants on 

pre-disposition release were more likely to be required to participate in a batterers’ intervention program. The 

Court itself produced a higher rate of disposition by guilty plea, which saves the system time and money. 

Interpretations of recidivism findings are severely constrained by limitations in the recidivism data and the 

pre/post design. We consistently found that criminal history, especially criminal contempt of court orders, 

predicted how well defendants performed pre- and post-disposition. Recommendations for future research 

efforts are offered. 

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.
Executive Summary 

This report was prepared under a grant from the National Institute of Justice in the U.S. Department of 

Justice to the Center for Court Innovation in New York and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. The grant 

funded process and outcome evaluation research to document the implementation and effectiveness of the 

Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC). This final report provides a process evaluation 

through an analysis of the goals and strategies of the model under which the Court and partner agencies 

operate; an overview of major influences in the Court’s development in its first four years of operation; 

implementation issues which have arisen and how they have been addressed; and operational issues still 

outstanding. It is based on qualitative research methods, including interviews with a number of key court and 

partner agency personnel; observations of courtroom proceedings; and attendance at coordination meetings. It 

also draws on statistical analyses of data provided by the Office of Court Administration on Court cases, and 

on documents prepared by the Center for Court Innovation and others. The impact evaluation compares case 

characteristics, processing, and outcomes for a sample of cases adjudicated in Kings County’s Supreme Court 

before the FDVC was established with a sample of cases adjudicated by the specialized court during the early 

months of its operation. Statistical analyses address a number of questions around the central issue of what 

difference it makes to adjudicate felony domestic violence cases under the specialized court model. 

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE COURT MODEL 

The FDVC has been in operation since June 1996. Its goal is to create an effective and coordinated response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together criminal justice and social service agencies. 

The Court model operates at both a systemic level, by seeking to change how community agencies work 

together, and at an individual case level, through efforts to hold offenders more accountable and provide better 

protection and services to victims. The model features a number of innovative structures and practices: 

A network of crinziizal justice and social service partner agencies who work together on making the 

model succeed. The core partner agencies coordinate at a systemic level through regular networking 

meetings and multi-disciplinary trainings. The key agencies consist of the Court, the Center for Court 

Innovation (a public/private partnership which develops and implements innovative court programs); 

the Kings County District Attorney’s Office’s Domestic Violence Bureau and Counseling Services 

Unit; Safe Horizon’s Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Unit (a private non-profit, formerly Victim 

Services); the New York City Department of Probation; New York Forensics and Safe Horizon’s Alternatives to Violence (batterer intervention providers); and Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime. 

The specialized caseload of virtually all indicted domestic violence felonies in the jurisdiction, and no 

other cases than domestic violence felonies. Concentrating all these cases on a single docket has the 

advantages of efficiently bringing resources together, and making it easier to identify and address gaps 

in the system of services. 

Trained and dedicated personnel from corirt, prosecution, offender intervention and treatment, probation, arid victim service agencies. Most of the personnel involved in these cases specialize in 

domestic violence cases and have received extensive and ongoing training in domestic violence issues. 

The judges take a key leadership role in implementing this model. 

Vertical processing and standard practices to eizsicre consistency in case handling. Each case is handled by the same judge and prosecutor/advocate team from the point of post-indictment arraignment in 

the Supreme Court (with occasional exceptions for cases that go to trial). Standard practices. such as 

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 routine use of protection orders and Court mandates to batterer intervention and treatment programs as needed during the pre-disposition phase. are employed. 

Enlmncecl case inforination flow arnong partner agencies to improve jiidicial decision-making mid 

partner agency operations. Each judge has a resource coordinator and the batterer intervention, treatment, probation, and victim service agencies have Court liaisons or dedicated staff to enhance the 

exchange of information about cases. A grant-funded technology application project has developed an 

automated system to make communication links faster and more efficient, and information more readily available. 

0 An emphasis on defendant monitoring and accountability. Defendants are routinely ordered to a batterer intervention program during the pre-disposition period and post-disposition for probationers. 

These programs are used by the court almost wholly as a means of surveillance; the court follows attendance at the programs between court appearances to assure compliance and accountability. 

Defendants and probationers must also appear regularly in Court for monitoring purposes, so the Court 

can review their compliance with Court orders and sanction non-compliance. Monitoring occurs 

throughout the pre-disposition period for both detained and released defendants, and after disposition 

for those sentenced to probation and, recently, for those released on parole. 

0 Enhanced protection for, and services to, victims. Advocates from Safe Horizon and the District Attorney’s Office’s Counseling Services Unit work with the victims in domestic violence cases from just 

prior to the point of grand jury presentation (or earlier, for major crimes that receive on-scene intervention) through case disposition and sometimes beyond, particularly if the offender is sentenced to 

probation. The advocates offer a broad range of assessment, referral, and information services to victims, and provide the Court with information on victims’ reports of further threats, intimidation, or 

abuse by the batterer (with the victims’ consent). The Court also offers protection to victims through 

the routine use of orders of protection thoughout the adjudication process and usually as a condition 

of disposition. 

@ 0 

The Court has received recognition for its efforts through media coverage; visits from local, national, and 

international delegations; grant funding to enhance and expand Court operations; and designation as a “Best 

Practice” model site at a regional Department of Justice conference. Also. the Court model has been replicated 

in other courts, and featured in presentations at a number of professional conferences. The Center for Court 

Innovation, a key partner, received a very prestigious Innovations in American Government Award from 

Harvard University and the Ford Foundation in 1998. 

DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION, AND EVOLUTION OF THE COURT MODEL 

The Court model has its roots in many factors. These include a growing awareness of the need for an intensive and coordinated approach to these difficult and complicated cases, and pioneering efforts with 

specialized dockets and other critical elements of the model (such as coordinated partnerships, specialized 

prosecution units, and enhanced services for victims and batterers), in other jurisdictions across the nation. 

Innovative approaches to case handling were already being used in this jurisdiction before the Court started, 

such as the District Attorney Office’s evidence-based prosecution policy, vertical prosecution model, and 

expanded definition of domestic violence. The court system had previously used treatment referrals, monitoring, and resource coordinators in specialized drug court. The Court also received the support of the 

administrative judges, the District Attorney, and other influential personnel. Its starting date was expedited by 

the catalyst of a domestic violence homicide. 

In the first several years of operations, FDVC saw its caseload grow substantially, due tv a number of 

@hctors. The District Attorney’s Office became more likely to indict and prosecute cases in the context of the 

specialized court. Also, legislation enacted shortly after the Court’s start mandated arrest for domestic violence 

cases under certain circumstances, and upgraded most protection-order violation offenses from misdemeanors 

... 

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.
io felonies. Prior to the legislative changes, these cases would have been adjudicated solely in lower courts. 

The court system responded to the increased caseload by recruiting judges from other felony parts to preside 

over trials, and by opening a second felony domestic violence part in April 1998. 

of arrests made. which may reflect decreases in the occurrence of felony domestic violence crimes, lower rates 

of reporting these crimes, and/or lower arrest rates. Unfortunately data are not available to test these hypotheses. But whatever the cause(s), the effect has been to relieve some of the pressures on the system agencies, and 

to allow a more faithful implementation of the model (such as true vertical adjudication and scheduling 

monitoring appearances more frequently). 

The Court model hhs been expanded in a number of ways. Additional agencies have become involved, 

including mental health service providers and additional batterer intervention programs. The original batterer 

intervention program stopped receiving clients because of problems in reporting and Court concerns about how 

services were delivered. Services have been expanded to Rikers Island so detained defendants and offenders 

serving jail time can receive services as well. Probation formed a dedicated domestic violence unit which 

offers intensive supervision, such as electronic surveillance for very high-risk cases. Links have been established with the State Department of Corrections and Division of Parole to better enforce post-disposition 

protection orders, and to allow Court monitoring of its parolees. Links have also been formed with the 

Brooklyn Family Court and the Administration for Children’s Services to address issues and improve coordination for families with cases in multiple courts, or with child abuse/neglect matters. The technology 

application assists in improving communication links among court and partner agencies, and streamlines the 

process of issuing and registering orders of protection. 

The Felony Court parts’ caseload has subsided since early 1999. This may be due to a drop in the number 

POLICY AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES 

Despite how the model has thrived and grown, FDVC and its partners still face a number of challenges. 

This model is extremely resource-intensive, and it is very difficult to provide the breadth and intensity of 

services specified under the model and demanded by the complexity of the cases while still meeting the Office 

of Court Administration’s standards for speedy case processing. The project director’s role is critical in 

ensuring the success of the model, and it needs to be sustained over time. 

prioritize cases to comply with legal requirements for timely indictments, and their ability to provide immediate, comprehensive, and frequent services to all victims. Several initiatives have been developed to address 

these concerns. Victim service providers also face restrictions on their options for refemng victims to needed 

community services due to their limited availability. 

Community resources that serve batterers are also extremely limited, especially for batterers whose violence has reached the felony level or is exacerbated by substance abuse or mental health treatment needs. 

Finally. concerns have been expressed from the defense bar over a number of fundamental issues concerning the court, including the wisdom of having a specialized docket; the legality of efforts to prevent future 

offenses, especially pre-disposition batterer intervention or other treatment orders which seem to imply guilt 

and impose punishment before a conviction has been reached (although a recent ruling upholding this practice 

has not been challenged by the defense bar); routine use of full rather than limited protection orders (full orders 

prohibit any contact while limited orders allow some contact); and definitions and procedures for identifying 

cases as domestic violence. Defense also raised some other concerns, which while having little to do with the 

court model are perhaps highlighted in the context of a specialized domestic violence docket. These include 

the fairness of legislative changes passed shortly before the opening of the FDVC that resulted in laws felonizing protection-order violations and mandating arrest; exceptions which have been made to evidence 

exclusion rules in domestic violence cases; and the District Attorney’s Office’s evidence-based prosecution 

policy, under which they are reluctant to drop cases on the victim’s request alone, but prefer to proceed with 

prosecution even bithout the victim’s testimony if they have other evidence with which to go forward. 

Prosecutors and victim service providers face a number of operational challenges, including the need to 

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.
HE IMPACT OF THE FDVC MODEL ON EARLY CASES 

We analyzed quantitative data to examine questions around how the model has changed the way cases are 

processed; the impact of this approach to adjudication on case outcomes; and effects on recidivism. A total of 

136 cases (including 27 cases in which a felony protection order violations was the only felony indictment 

charge) adjudicated by the FDVC in an early period (cases indicated in the first half of 1997) was compared 

with a sample of 93 cases handled by general felony court parts in the 18 months beflxe the specialized Court 

was established. It should be noted that these 136 FDVC-processed cases were all from the early days of the 

specialized Court (we sampled from this timeframe to allow a follow-up period for recidivism data), which has 

now disposed over 1,100 cases. Changes in the Court and partner agencies in the last three years are not 

reflected in our impact data. With that caveat in mind, our findings indicate that the use of this court model 

has made a difference in several key areas: 

c 

0 The District Attorney’s Office is more likely to indict cases with less severe police charges in order to 

bring the enhanced defendant monitoring and victim services resources to these cases. Dismissal rates 

are very low, at 5% to 10% of indicted cases. In addition, a new state law implemented shortly after 

the start of the Court resulted in many protection order violation cases being prosecuted as felonies, 

which would previously have been misdemeanors. These changes in law and practice mean that cases 

processed by the FDVC were as a group more heterogeneous than the pre-Court cases on severity of 

the criminal incident (even when the protection order violations were considered separately). This may 

in turn have influenced patterns in case processing, disposition, and sentencing, discussed below. 

Victim services are clearly expanded under the specialized Court, in that all victims are assigned an 

advocate and receive a protection order during case processing (and often afterwards as well). Unfortunately data describing the nature or impact of advocacy services received were not available. 

0 Judicial monitoring of defendant compliance could not be documented because information differenti0 

ating status appearances from other types of court appearances was not available from file reviews, 

either pre-disposition or post-disposition. Pre-disposition release was used somewhat more often in 

FDVC cases, and released FDVC defendants were more likely to be ordered to batterers’ intervention 

programs while on release. Many defendants were re-jailed for infractions 01’ release conditions, no 

matter which type of court handled their case. 

The specialized Court spent slightly more time, on average, processing cases from felony arraignment to 

disposition. However, the seventy of indictment charges and defendants who were released and remanded for infractions better predicted increased processing time. It is very dil’ficult but important to 

strike a balance between the need to give these complex and intractable cases the time and attention they 

require, the need to provide speedy justice, and the various pros and cons of predisposition release. 

Conviction rates did not change under the specialized Court, but methods of reaching disposition did. 

Convictions by guilty pleas were more common and trials were less common in FDVC cases. Even 

when accounting for other relevant factors (such as factors related to evidence), plea bargaining is 

more likely to result from use of the Court model itself. This represents a cost-savings to the court 

system. Conviction charges were, on the whole, less severe for FDVC cases than cases processed by 

general felony courts. This may be a product of the greater use of plea bargaining, and/or the fact that 

less serious cases (based on arrest charges) are more likely to enter the FDVC than were entering felony courts before. 

Sentencing practices under the FDVC model were neither more punitive (in terms of incarceration) nor 

more treatment-oriented (with treatment mandates as a condition of the sentence), on the whole, than 

sentencing practices before the Court began. It seems likely that sentencing did not become more punitive because of the broader mix of cases (on charge severity) entering the Court, and/or because of 

the greater use of plea bargaining. Orders to batterer intervention may not have increased in FDVC 

sentences because these programs were used so much more widely in the pre-disposition period. 

0 

0 

0 

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.
0 Data on probation violations and arrests for additional incidents were analyzed. Interpretation of these 

findings is extremely equivocal because of limitations imposed by the reliability of these indicators as 

measures of compliance and recidivism (we were limited to offilzial records of reported allegations, 

which may underestimate actual behaviors. and we could not differentiate domestic violence from 

other types of crimes), and because of the pre/post research design. With these warnings in mind, our 

results tentatively suggest that probation violations were reported for about one-third of all probationers, and did not change under the new court model. Additional arrests for those released prior to 

disposition were even higher, at nearly half of all released defendants. Rates of pre-disposition repeat 

arrests did not vary by type of court, but post-disposition arrest rates were double for FDVC-processed 

cases (about half vs. one-quarter). Very limited data were available on the nature of the additional arrest charges. and it was not possible to distinguish domestic violence from other types of criminal 

incidents. However, cases in the pre sample were most often arrested again for non-violent felony offenses, cases in the FDVC sample were most often re-arrested for misdemeanors, and criminal 

contempt (protection-order violation) cases were most often arrested again for criminal contempt. 

Criminal history, especially prior convictions for criminal contempt, emerged as one of the most consistent indicators of how well defendants performed both pre-disposition and in the post-disposition 

follow-up period. Those with prior criminal convictions, especidly for contempt, were less likely to be 

granted pre-disposition release, more likely to be re-jailed for violations when they were released, more 

likely to be convicted in the current case, and more likely to be arrested on new charges in the predisposition and post-disposition follow-up periods. These findings suggest that those with prior convictions, especially for criminal contempt, may need the closest monitoring and supervision by the 

system. 

0 

As the popularity of specialized domestic violence courts grows, additional research should be conducted 

to document how the approach grods and evaluate its impact. Further research could benefit from several 

lessons learned in this study: 

0 This study began several years after the specialized Court started. An evaluation component should be 

planned when a new court is being planned, so that evaluation can occur proactively rather than retroactively. This would allow evaluators to develop research materials with which to evaluate the model 

more thoroughly. In this study, for example, it was not possible to fully document the implementation 

of defendant monitoring techniques because sufficiently detailed information was not contained in case 

files, and our samples consisted of cases already processed and closed. 

Since domestic violence is such a notoriously chronic crime and victim safety is a critical concern, 

evaluators must address the question of recidivism. It is important to use the most reliable measures of 

recidivism, going beyond incidents which were reported to and acted upon by the authorities. Interviews with victims are the best way to measure repeat domestic violence (at least against that identified 

victim), both reported and unreported, for which arrests were and were not made. Resources for this 

critical step were not available here. but should be prioritized for future research efforts. 

0 

XI 

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 Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court Model 

The Kings County Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over felonies in the borough of Brooklyn, has been operating the Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) since June 1996. This Court operates 

under a model that features a number of innovative practices. The goals of this approach to adjudication are to 

create an effective and coordinated response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together criminal 

justice and social service agencies, and to serve as a model for other communities, state- and nation-wide. The 

niodel operates at both a systemic level, by seeking to change how community agencies work together, and at 

an individual case level, through efforts to hold offenders more accountable and provide better protection and 

services to victims. Several key features distinguish the structure and operations of FDVC from other felony 

courts with more generalized dockets and more traditional operating procedures: 

0 A network of criminal justice and social service partner agencies who work together on making the 

model succeed; 

The specialized caseload of virtually all indicted domestic violence felonies in the jurisdiction, and no 

other cases than domestic violence felonies; 

Trained and dedicated personnel from court. prosecution, probation, offender intervention and treatment, and victim service agencies; 

Vertical processing and standard practices to ensure consistency in case handling; 

Enhanced case information flow among partner agencies to improve judicial decision-making and 

partner agency operations; 

An emphasis on defendant monitoring, and accountability; and 

Enhanced protection for, and services to, victims. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

FDVC has received considerable recognition for its efforts, including media attention, visits from national 

and international teams of practitioners and policy makers, and grant support for enhancement and expansion 

of the Court model. 

A NETWORK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL SERVICE PARTNER AGENCIES 

One of the key features of this Court model is its emphasis on building partnerships of public and private 

sector community agencies who coordinate their work toward achieving a common set of goals. The core 

partner agencies include FDVC itself; the Center for Court Innovation (CCI); the Domestic Violence Bureau 

and Counseling Services Unit of the District Attorney’s Office; Safe Horizon’s Brooklyn Felony Domestic 

Violence Unit; the New York City Department of Probation; New York Forensics and Safe Horizon’s Alternatives to Violence; and Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC). The defense bar, including several 

major agencies who provide contracted public defense services to the county (Brooklyn Defender Services and 

Legal Aid Society). also participates in many of the networking activities but does not consider itself a partner 

of the Court. Pnrtiier Agency Profiles are presented in the following pages to provide thumbnail sketches ofthe major partner agencies and their mission, activities, and key staff. 

Speoalized feiony Domestic Violence Icourts 1 

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 Agency Profile 

Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court 

hission 

nies in Kings County (Brooklyn) from post-indictment arraignment through case disposition, and postdisposition for probationers. Its goals are to facilitate a coordinated network of partner agencies with 

strong communication links to promote offender accountability, victim safety, and case processing consistency. while delivering justice within a speedy time frame. 

The Court consists of two parts. both of which vertically adjudicate indicted domestic violence feloActivities 

The courts handle all standard adjudication procedures for these cases, including arraignment. hearings, motions, trials, disposition, and sentencing. In addition, enhanced case services include predisposition monitoring of all defendants, post-disposition monitoring of offenders on probation, frequent 

use of batterer intervention, substance abuse, and mental health services, and routine and universal use of 

orders of protection. A resource coordinator for each judge acts as the linchpin for case-based communication among the Court and partner agencies, providing the partners with critical information (such as 

orders to batterer intervention. other treatment programs, or probation) and regularly collecting compliance 

information, updates on alleged protection-order violations, and service information from partner agencies. 

This function allows the supporting agencies to efficiently intake clients according to Court mandates, and 

allows the Court to enforce its mandates by identifying and sanctioning violations, thereby increasing 

defendant accountability and victim safety. 

date partners on new developments. encourage network expansion, and identify and resolve problems areas 

as they arise. 

In addition, the judges facilitate a coordinated network by convening regular partner meetings to upfe;hz%norable Michael Pesce, Chief Administrative Jezebel Cook, Resource Coordinator 

Judge of the Second Judicial District of New York 

(Brooklyn and Staten Island) 

0 The Honorable John Leventhal, Justice of the 

Supreme Court, Kings County Felony Domestic 

Violence Court 

0 The Honorable Matthew D’Emic, Acting Justice of 

the Supreme Court, Kings County Felony Domestic 

Violence Court 

James Imperatrice, Chief Clerk, Criminal Term, Kings 

County Supreme Court 

Joseph Canzella. Deputy Chief Clerk, Criminal Term, 

Kings County Supreme Court 

Sharon Lastique, Resource Coordinator 

Charles Troia and Karen Kleinberg, Principal Law 

Clerks 

John Gallo and William Mitchell, Supreme Court 

Clerks 

Sgts. Boyd-Gillen and Alan Tisman 

0 Supreme Court Officers John Ramillo, Ronald 

McLaughlin, Carl Fiorillo, Judith Mason, Guy Tucci, 

and George Austin 

2 Spec/a//zed Felony Dornestx Violence Courts 

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 Agency Profile 

The Center for Court Innovation 

Mission 

The Center for Court Innovation (CCI) is a public/private partnership between the New York State 

Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York. a non-profit established by the Ford 

Foundation in 1968 to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of government and other nonprofits in New 

York City. CCI aims to foster innovation within the state’s and nation’s courts. The Center is comprised 

of a small group of planners, researchers. and technology experts who function like the research and 

development arm of a corporation. The Center addresses emerging challenges within the court system, 

investigates new ideas in the field. and tests new approaches to chronic problems. Courts the Center has 

been instrumental in developing and implementing include the Midtown Community Court, the Brooklyn 

Treatment Court, the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the Manhattan Family Treatment Court, and 

domestic violence courts in the Bronx, Buffalo, and Westchester and Suffolk Counties. 

Activities 

the development and early implementation of the Court model. When the Court first opened, she worked 

full time on this project serving as a project director (hereafter in this document referenced as the Director), 

though she now has a much broader range of responsibilities. She spent a great deal of her time with the 

original judge in the courtroom, consulting with him on a case-by-case basis. This provided extensive onthe-job training to the judge. Also, the Director and the Domestic Violence Court Project Planner are 

instrumental in convening and facilitating partner meetings to enhance interagency linkages and identify 

and resolve emerging problem areas. They and the Training Coordinator work with partners one-on-one, 

as appropriate, when specific issues arise. They play a key role in development and expansion of the Court 

model by networking with potential future partner agencies, developing new or expanded programs which 

would benefit the Court, and developing fund raising efforts to support these activities, and developing 

training for Court and partner agency personnel. Finally, they play a large role in efforts to publicize the 

Court by presenting papers at profeksional conferences and frequently hosting delegations of visitors. In 

her wider role as Director of Domestic Violence and Family Court Programs, the Director works closely 

with judges in all the specialized domestic violence courts throughout the state, gives presentations to 

judges and others at a variety of settings on the principles of a domestic violence court, and ensures that the 

principles of the court model piloted in Brooklyn are faithfully replicated throughout the state. 

One of the grant-funded areas of expansion is the Domestic Violence Court Technology Application. 

The core technology application is funded by the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department 

of Justice and the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services. The State Justice Institute is 

funding Resource Link, which enables remote links between the core application and ksy partner agencies, 

including the District Attorney’s Office, defense attorneys, Safe Horizon, Probation, New York Forensics, 

and ATV. The technology application has developed an automated case-level database for use by the 

Court and the major partner agencies. The goal is to enhance the flow of information on Court orders, 

defendant compliance and re-arrests, and victim safety and services by allowing each partner to provide 

automated data on their case actions, services, and information, and have access to information provided 

by other partners on a need-to-know basis. The system will also streamline the process of issuing protection orders, by automatically registering them with the state’s Domestic Violence Registry, and accessing 

the Registry for domestic violence history checks. 

The Director of Domestic Violence and Family Court Programs, an employee of CCI, was active in 

Key Staff 

John Feinblatt, Director of the Center for Court 

Innovation Research 

0 Emily Sack, J.D., Deputy Director at CCI and Director 

of Domestic Violence and Family Court Programs 

0 Christine Siscaretti, Domestic Violence Court Project 

Planner 

Robyn Mnzur. State-Wide Domestic VlolenCe Training 

Coordinator 

Ruth Eichmiller, Court Coordinator for Children of 

Domestic Violence 

Michele Sviridoff, Deputy Director and Director of 

Nora Puffet, Domestic Violence Research Associate 

Christine Sisario. Senior Technology Coordinator 

Alex Tolchin, Technology Pldilner for the Brooklyn Felony 

Domestic Violence Court Technology Application 

Leonid Brodsky, Applications Programer 

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 Agency Profile 

Kings County District Attorney’s Office 

Domestic Violence Bureau and Counseling Services Unit 1 

Mission 

The mission of the Domestic Violence Bureau of the District Attorney’s Office is to successfully 

prosecute cases while providing victims with protection from further abuse and services to help them 

recover from abuse already suffered. The Bureau‘s staff of attorneys work most closely with advocates in 

the DA’s Counseling Services Unit and from Safe Horizon (and with other community agencies as 

needed). The DA advocates’ priorities are to assist prosecutors and provide services to victims. 

Activities 

mined by the District Attorney’s complaint room to involve intimate partner relationships. They are 

trained in the issues of domestic violence and are expert on working with reluctant victims, prosecuting 

without victim participation, safety planning. malung referrals for services, and coordinating with victim 

advocates to ensure victim safety. The Domestic Violence Bureau is staffed by trained and experienced 

Misdemeanor Assistant District Attorneys and Felony Assistant District Attorneys. After arraignment in 

criminal court, a Domestic Violence Bureau Felony Assistant District Attorney (ADA) presents felony 

cases before a grand jury for felony indictment. Once the case is indicted, the Felony ADA vertically 

prosecutes the case (in a team paired with an advocate employed in the DA’s Counseling Services Unit or 

from Safe Horizon) for its duration. The Domestic Violence Bureau also includes an Elder Abuse Unit 

specializing in those cases, the Barrier-Free Justice Project, and the Central Brooklyn Task Force. The 

Barrier-Free Justice Project, funded by a S T O P V A W A grant, is a partnership with Bamer-Free Living (a 

nonprofit providing residential shelter for the disabled) and Brooklyn Legal Services (which provides civil 

legal assistance to victims) to improve services to disabled victims of domestic violence. The Central 

brooklyn Task Force, funded by a VAWA Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies, focuses on enhancing 

coordination with police and services to underserved groups in two specific precincts. Other special 

initiatives focus on using technology to enhance victim safety, teenaged victims, offenders who are law 

enforcement officers, children of domestic violence, fatality reviews, coordination with family courts, 

training of police officers, and outreach and education to community organizations. 

Attorneys in the Domestic Violence Bureau prosecute misdemeanor and felony cases that are deterThe Felony ADAs’ role includes: 

0 in-depth interviewing of victims before grand jury to assess the details of the instant incident and 

history of abuse. This process also involves explaining prosecution and the court process. and 

preparing the victim for the grand jury. 

0 drawing up indictment charges and presentation before a grand jury. 

0 vertical prosecution of cases in the felony domestic violence parts from supreme court arraignment 

prosecuting major misdemeanor cases in criminal courts. 

continued gathering of evidence regarding the instant incident and history of abuse. 

providing information to the Court on re-arrests and violations against victims during the pendency 

file pre-trial motions, present at hearings, and prosecute at trial. 

through case disposition. ’ 

of the case. 

The DA’s Counseling Services Unit is staffed by about 30 advocates and administrative staff. It was 

formed in January 1999 by combining the Victim Assistance Units formerly within the Domestic Violence, 

Sexual Assault, and Child Abuse Bureaus into a single unit. Eight advocates and about eight to ten student 

nterns provide services to domestic violence cases. Three of these advocates carry caseloads of about 40-60 I elony cases, plus hundreds of misdemeanors, from all areas of Brooklyn except those targeted by the Central 

Brooklyn Task Force project (below). The advocates’ services for domestic violence cases include: 

0 the Central Brooklyn Task Force project to improve coordination with police in two Brooklyn precincts and expand outreach and services to underserved groups in those precincts, by working closely 

4 Specialized Felony Dornestfc V/olence Courts 

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 the New York City Asian Women’s Center. the Arab-American Family Support Center, the 

Caribbean Women’s Health Association, and the Center for Elimination of Violence in the Family. 

Three of the six advocates who handle domestic violence cases are dedicated to this project. 

0 on-scene crisis intervention for survivors of domestic homicide victims or very serious domestic 

assaults. 

initial case interviews to gather information on the history of violence for case preparation, lethality assessment, safety planning, needs assessment, service planning. and making referrals for 

relocation services. financial assistance, long-term counseling, and other needs. 

ongoing client contact to assess progress. service needs, and repeat abuse, threats, or other violations of orders of protection, and to keep clients informed of Court procedures and case status. 

0 ongoing reports to the Court on victim safety and violations of orders, during both the pre-disposition 

and the post-disposition period for victims of probationers being monitored by the Court. 

0 advocacy with assistant district attorneys and probation officers on behalf of victims. 

0 individual therapy and support groups 

0 programs to enhance safety for victims at high risk. including the AWARE beeper program to alert 

0 enhanced relocation services on both emergency and long-term bases 

a voice mail account for victims to retrieve messages from prosecutors and relatives 

91 1 at the press of a button, and a cell phone program for dialing 91 1 from any location 

Key Staff 

Attorneys 

a Charles J. Hynes, Kings County District Attorney 

Lisa Smith, Chief of Policy and Planning, Special 

Victims Division Arlene Markarian, Unit Chief, Elder Abuse Unit, 

a Wanda Lucibello, Chief. Special Victims Division 

Leslie Kahn and Kin Ng, First Deputy Bureau Chiefs, 

Domestic Violence Bureau 

Domestic Violence Bureau 

Deidre Bialo-Padin, Chief, ~~~~~~i~ violence B~~~~~ 

Anthony Catalano, Executive Assistant District 

Attorney, Domestic Violence Bureau 

Christine Grille, Supervising Senior, Domestic 

Violence Bureau 

Cynthia Lynch, Counsel, Domestic Violence Bureau 

a Nancy Greenberg and Elisa Paisner, Bureau Chiefs, Thomas Cam, Anthony DeFazio, Daniel Hoeffner, 

Domestic Violence Bureau 

Shelley Edelstein, Deputy Bureau Chief, Domestic 

Violence Bureau 

Philip Hosang, Michelle Kaminsky, Jonathan Kaye, 

Robert Lamb, Evelyn LaPorte, Nancy Nayson, Laurie 

Opochinsky, Lisa Posamentier, Samantha Puro, and 

Stacey Salinsky, Felony Assistant District Attorneys, 

Domestic Violence Bureau 

Domestic Violence Advocates in the Counseling Services Unit 

Ovita Williams, Senior Clinical Supervisor and Amanda Voytek, Director of Counseling Programs 

Sara Ellis, Coordinator of the DA’s Brooklyn Director of Intern Services 

Kathy Charlap, Director of Clinical Services Domestic Violence Task Force 

\Specia/ized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 5 

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 Agency Profile 

Safe Horizon’s Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Unit 

hission 

Safe Horizon (SH. formerly Victim Services) is a private non-profit agency that provides a broad 

scope of services to crime victims throughout New York City. The mission of SH is to provide support, 

prevent violence. and promote justice for victims of crime and abuse, their families, and communities. 

Founded in 1978, SH is now the nation’s leading victim assistance agency. SH operates extensive community and court-based services for victims of domestic violence. sexual assault, rape, child abuse, and 

assault. as well as survivors of homicide. In addition, SH operates hotlines for domestic violence, sexual 

assault, elder abuse, and other crime victims, and offers mediation services. Safe Horizon is also committed to violence prevention and conducts school-based programs for youth. 

Activities 

Domestic Violence Bureau of the District Attorney’s Office, and in the Supreme Court. The advocates’ 

caseloads typically range from approximately 20 to 50 felony cases. SH maintains client confidentiality 

and staff must obtain permission from clients to report information regarding the case to the Court. Felony 

cases are assigned to an advocate after indictment by the grand jury. Advocates perform a detailed intake 

during the initial client interview to evaluate the history of violence, the circumstances of the current 

offense, conduct a lethality assessment, and assist the client with safety planning. Additionally, the client’s 

needs are examined and referrals for relocation services, financial services. or long-term counseling can be 

made at this time. Other services the SH advocates offer include: 

The advocates assigned to SH’s dedicated felony domestic violence unit are located in offices in the 

0 ongoing client contact to assess progress, service needs, and repeat abuse, threats, or other violations of orders of protection, and to keep clients informed of Court procedures and case status; 

ongoing reports to the Court on victim safety and violations of protection orders by the defendants, 

during both the pre-disposition and the post-disposition period for victims of probationers being 

monitored by the Court; 

0 advocacy with assistant district attorneys, probation officers, and other agencies on behalf of victims, with victims’ permission; 

0 close contact in the post-disposition period with victims whose offenders are assigned to Probation’s Start (Juris Monitor) program because of high risk. 

1 

SH advocates offer additional services beyond those offered by the DA’ s advocates: 

0 advocacy and assistance in processing applications to the city public housing authority and federal 

0 access to SH internal emergency assistance funds. 

Section 8 voucher program to expedite relocation; and 

Key Staff 

Christy Gibney Carey, Director, Brooklyn Criminal Karline Volcy, Case Manager, Brooklyn Felony 

Kinaja Janardhanan, Manager, Brooklyn Felony Jasmine Salazar, Case Manager, Brooklyn Felony 

and Supreme Court Programs 

Domestic Violence Court Program 

Domestic Violence Court Program 

Domestic Violence Court Program 

6 Speoaiized Felony Dornest/c Vioierice Courts 

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 Agency Prof//e 

Department of Probation 

Miss ion 

The primary mission of Probation is to promote public safety by providing supervision for the thou- 

;ands of adults and juveniles placed on probation each year by judges in the Family, Supreme and 

Zriminal Courts. They seek to help people who have committed serious crimes to redirect their lives and 

Jecome responsible members of the communities in which they live. They attempt to give each proba- 

:ioner the tools he or she will need to lead a law-abiding life and to identify those probationers unable or 

not willing to make that transition. 

Activities 

The City-wide Domestic Violence Program supervises domestic violence offenders using a rigorous 

form of supervision based on the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) model for felony offenders. EM- 

[SP (Electronic Monitoring - Intensive Supervision Program) implements a Juris Monitor program in 

which very high risk offenders are placed under house arrest and monitored with electronic ankle bracelets. 

The victim has a receiver that alerts the victim if the offender is within close range. Victims are provided 

with a cellular phone programmed to dial 91 1 for emergencies. The FDVC typically assigns its offenders 

zonvicted of felonies to EM-ISP or the City-wide Domestic Violence Program, while most of the offenders 

convicted of misdemeanors are assigned to Probation’s Enforcement Track. Probationers in the Enforcement Tracks are supervised in the community while adhering to conditions mandated by probation, 

including counseling, job training, and a wide array of community-based services. EM-ISP and the Citywide Domestic Violence Program involve much closer monitoring and more extensive case management 

than traditional probation. All domestic violence offenders are assessed for a variety of needs (including 

substance abuse treatment, job placement, occupational or educational skills) and are mandated to follow 

through with service referrals. During the period of intensive probation (typically about 12 to 18 months) 

probationers meet at least twice a week with their probation officer in his or her office, and the probation 

officers visit probationers at their hbe, job or school twice a month. These probation officers have 

restricted caseloads (compared with traditional probation officers) to permit this more intensive level of 

services to probationers. 

Probationers in EM-ISP are reassigned to the City-wide Domestic Violence Program once it is felt 

they can function without the electronic monitoring. 

In Kings county, a supervising probation officer from the City-wide Domestic Violence Program 

serves as a liaison to the Court, performing pre-sentencing assessments and intakes on potential probationers, and regularly reporting progress and problems to the Court during the post-dispositional monitoring 

period. The City-wide Domestic Violence Program officers receive ongoing training in domestic violence 

issues. Probation also has an armed warrant team that apprehends offenders who have absconded or 

violated probation conditions or a Court order, including an order of protection. 

Key Staff 

Irene Prager, Assistant commissioner, City-wide 0 Hunter Cole, Douglas LaMotta, Rosemary Salinger, 

Maritza Hernandez, Selina Jadoobir. Doug Walters, 

Dawn Gordon, Rashid Hamadi, Gustavo Benetiz, 

John Desenchak, Sade Salami and Larry Polonetsky, 

Probation Officers, City-wide Domestic Violence 

Program, 

Richard Kaecker, Supervising Probation Officer, 

Armed Field Unit, City-wide Domestic Violence 

Program. 

Officers, Armed Field Uilit, City-wide Domestic 

Domestic Violence Program 

Ellen Arkin-Runde, Branch Chief, City-wide Domestic Violence Program 

Leta Binder, Administrative Manager for Operations 

Judith Rubin, Investigations Review Officer and 

Liaison to the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court. 

0 Jacqueline Simmons and Carol Pearson, Supervising 

Probation Officers. City-wide Domestic Violence 

Program. Violence Program. 

. Karim Scott and Hector Probation 

Specia//zed Felony Dornestlc Vioience Courts 7 

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 Agency Profile 

New York Center for Neuropsychology and Forensic Behavioral Science 

(New York Forensics) 1 

Mission 

New York Forensics is a private for-profit that provides clinical evaluation, forensic assessment, and 

mental health treatment services to a wide variety of clients and defendants, referring clinicians, attorneys, 

and the criminal justice system. The Prevention of Family Violence Program (PFVP) is a psychoeducational intervention for men who batter. and was created in 1998. The PFVP has been working with FDVC 

referrals since about mid-1999. 

Activities 

program of 90-minute group meetings. The groups are limited to about 12 to 15 participants each and run 

in fixed cycles (rather than open-ended). There are orientation and preparatory activities in which clients 

participate if they are referred at a time when no group is about to begin; clients do not await services. 

Each session costs from $15 to $35 (depending on client’s income), for a total of $450 to $1050 for the 

entire program. The group uses the Duluth psychoeducational model with interactive teaching techniques, 

and can accept clients with substance abuse or mental health issues if they are concurrently in treatment for 

those needs. Individual counseling is also available if necessary, but couples counseling is not used with 

court-referred cases. 

Two absences are permitted, but on the third absence the client is terminated from the program and 

the refemng agency is notified. Program staff contact the Courts’ Resource Coordinators on a weekly 

basis to notify the FDVC of warnings (issued at the second absence) and terminations. The Director of the 

PFVP estimates that about 60-90% of Court referrals complete their program, which is attributed to Court 

monitoring and accountability, enhanced by effective information-sharing through regular communications 

)with the Resource Coordinators. 

The PFVP offers group intervention for male batterers in intimate relationships through a 39-week 

Key Staff 

John Aponte, Director of PFVP 

8 Specialized Feiony Domestic Violence Courts 

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 Agency Profile 

Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence 

Mission 

who batter their intimate partners, and to encourage them to take responsibility for and stop the abuse. 

There is an emphasis on challenging belief systems that uphold a man's right to control and dominate his 

partner. ATV did not serve felony cases until quite recently, at which point its services became available 

to the FDVC (in March 2000). 

The Alternatives to Violence Program (ATV) was developed in 1982 to provide education for men 

Activities 

historical and cultural contexts, reviewing the criminal and legal consequences of domestic violence, 

challenging belief systems that validate domestic violence, and taking responsibility for anger, actions, and 

reactions. The course consists of 26 weekly sessions of 90 minutes each, held Monday through Thursday 

evenings. Classes, which are available in English and Spanish, are taught by two instructors. The class 

cycles are open-ended, so that clients can join at any time and there are no waiting lists. Only group ' 

counseling is used, not individual or couples counseling. Sixteen groups operate in Brooklyn, with about 

15 to 18 clients per group, for a total of about 240 to 290 active clients at a given time. There is a $35 

intake fee and a $25 per-class fee, which is reduced to $10 for intake and $5 for classes for those on public 

assistance. There are some limitations on whom ATV can serve; the program cannot serve those with 

obvious emotional disturbances or serious untreated substance abuse problems, nor can it serve those with 

multiple felony convictions or bench warrants. Three absences or two consecutive absences result in 

program termination and notifying the court and/or probation. 

ATV uses an educational approach which focuses on defining domestic violence, understanding its 

Key Staff 

Ted Bunch, Director 

Carol Morrison, Deputy Director 

Juan Ramos, Brooklyn Intake Supervisor 

Speoaiized Felony Dornestfc Vioience Courts 9 

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 Agency Pro fde 

Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime 

hission 

system and substance abuse treatment programs. To provide an alternative to incarceration, TASC works 

with defendants who would otherwise be jail- or prison-bound. TASC assesses defendants for drug and 

alcohol abuse treatment needs; makes referrals to. and facilitates placement in, appropriate treatment 

programs; and monitors both the programs themselves and defendants’ compliance with program requirements. TASC may also assess and refer for other service needs such as vocational training and anger 

management programs. TASC has not traditionally worked with violent offenders, but has made an 

exception for this Court’s domestic violence defendants since the Court first opened. TASC’s obligations 

are to provide linkage services and monitoring information to the Court and the District Attorney’s Office, 

as well as to assist in meeting the defendant’s treatment needs. TASC has recently added mental health 

services and now has a dedicated staff of mental health professionals, with a specific staff person dedicated 

to the FDVC. 

Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) serves as an intermediary between the criminal justice 

Activities 

provide progress reports to the Court on defendants in treatment programs under TASC auspices, to assist 

the Court in its monitoring activities. The domestic violence case manager refers clients to programs, 

monitors their compliance, and monitors the programs. Defendants in non-residential programs must 

report to TASC offices once or twice a week for urine testing and a review of their treatment progress, 

employment status, and where and with whom they are living to ensure order of protection compliance. 

Defendants in residential treatment are closely monitored for treatment progress, who they visit if granted 

weekend passes, and abscondance (in these cases, TASC makes prompt notification to both the District 

ttorney’s Office and the Court). TASC case managers also make regular contacts with treatment provid- !! rs (both residential and non-residential) to asseis defendants’ treatment progress, and visit facilities about 

once a month to monitor the programs’ operation and encourage compliance with reporting requirements 

(such as prompt abscondance notification). Also, TASC monitors graduates of residential treatment 

programs for about three to six months after they leave the program. TASC is generally involved in cases 

for a period of 18 to 24 months. The domestic violence case manager carries a caseload of about 35 to 40 

cases. 

cate (repeat) felons and 62-65% of non-predicate felons successfully complete the program. This is 

attributed in part to the constant monitoring and a reminder of incarceration time defendants face if 

unsuccessful. and the Court’s use of its “muscle,” (by imposing intermediate sanctions such as a judicial 

scolding or a remand, for example) when needed. 

TASC staff do intakes on Court-referred clients, assess their substance abuse treatment needs, and 

TASC cites a high success rate among their participants; the regional director estimates 70% of prediKey Staff 

Kenneth Linn, Regional Director 

Lauren D’Isselt, Mental Health Director 

John Grant, Case Manager for Brooklyn Felony 

Domestic Violence Court 

10 Specia//zed i-eiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
There is a critical focus on strengthening links between partner agencies and bringing new agencies into 

the network through coordination meetings, multidisciplinary trainings, expansion of programs to new agencies, and improved means of sharing information. The Director of Domestic Violence Court Programs plays a 

key role in facilitating cross-agency coordination. She is instrumental in organizing partner meetings, facilitating training opportunities, and identifying gaps in the system and facilitating efforts to address them. 

Two types of regular meetings hosted by the judges, and a third, smaller meeting hosted by CCI, bring 

together the key staff of the FDVC and partner agencies. The largest “breakfast” meetings are held as needed, 

bringing together Court and partner staff with the staff of additional community-based groups and agencies 

who may not be partners of the FDVC but whose work relates to the Court’s efforts. These meetings serve to 

inform the other agencies about the Court, to allow Court and partner staff to learn about these agencies‘ work, 

and to discuss how the agencies might become partners in the network. These meetings have been attended by 

representatives from battered women’s shelter providers, substance abuse and mental health treatment providers, police officers and victim service coordinators from Brooklyn police precincts, and hospital administrators 

and emergency room social workers. Monthly “lunch” meetings, which have grown to 50 attendees or more, 

are composed primarily of representatives of the Court and partner agencies, and provide a forum for sharing 

updates on ongoing projects. announcing upcoming events of general interest, introducing prospective or new 

partner agencies, and discussing implementation issues that have arisen. Finally, smaller monthly meetings 

hosted by CCI bring together key FDVC staff including the resource coordinators, victim advocate supervisors, 

District Attorney supervisors. and the Director. In these meetings very specific operational issues are discussed 

and problems are resolved. 

The Court and CCI have also hosted a series of multidisciplinary trainings designed to inform current and 

potential partners about issues of interest to the Court’s and partner agencies’ operations. Expert speakers have 

discussed issues around the Welfare Reform Act, the impact of domestic violence on children, teen dating 

violence, immigration issues, the health care system, elder abuse, and recent research on batterer intervention. 

THE SPECIALIZED CASELOAD 

FDVC adjudicates nearly all’ indicted domestic violence felonies in Kings County (the borough of 

Brooklyn), and only indicted domestic violence felonies, from the post-indictment arraignment through final 

disposition, and through post-disposition monitoring for offenders sentenced to probation and for parolees. 

Concentrating all these cases on one docket has several advantages. 

These cases are often very volatile and involve serious harm and substantial risk of further injury to the 

victim. The cases handled in FDVC typically involve very severe charges, including homicide, attempted 

homicide, and aggravated assault, and often involve defendants with extensive histories of violence and contact 

with the criminal justice system. These emotionally charged cases can be extremely volatile, with violent 

defendants who may have or seek continued contact with their victims. Victims often require a great deal of 

support and assistance. as they have recently been subjected to a serious criminal act and are at risk of further 

abuse. Given the intensity and the breadth of case services that may be needed to deter repeat abuse and help 

victims recover. it can be much more feasible to marshal resources and bring them to bear on cases in a 

sufficiently focused way when all such cases are concentrated together in a few specialized dockets. For 

example, when intensive victim advocacy and counseling services are offered to promote victim safety and 

recovery from abuse, it is much more efficient if advocates have only a few points of referral for case intakes 

FDVC and the District Attorney’s Office’s follow approximately the same definition of domestic violence, which 

includes all intimate partner abuse (current or former marital, common-law (live together), boyfriend/girlfriend (don’t 

live together), and same-sex relationships; and those with a child in common), elder abuse, and abuse of a parent by an 

adult child or grandchild. The definition excludes sibling abuse and child abuse. Domestic homicides were origirially 

prosecuted by the Homicide Bureau, but have been handled mostly by the Domestic Violence Bureau for over two years 

now. Similarly, sexual assaults involving intimates, which used to be processed by the Sex Crimes Bureau, are now 

typically handled by the Domestic Violence Bureau. The court has, on occasion, granted applications from the defense 

bar to transfer cases from other parts into FDVC. 

1 

a 

Speoa/ized felony Domestic V/o/ence COiJftS 1 1 

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.
d points of contact for exchanging information on case events, such as court actions and threats or occurIt is also much easier to identify and address gaps in the total system of services when all domestic vioqnces of repeat harm. 

lence felonies are concentrated together. As a hypothetical example. if a systemic problem were to arise in the 

intake process for defendants required to undergo batter intervention as a condition of pretrial release (such 

that many of these defendants never participated in this program), this gap could easily escape the notice of 

judges who handle only a few such cases out of a widely varied caseload. With judges who handle only 

domestic violence felonies, systemic gaps - which are likely to repeat themselves in case after case - quickly 

become apparent. The Court can then work with the concerned agencies to resolve the problem. 

TRAINED AND DEDICATED PERSONNEL 

The Court model features the use of a relatively small number of trained personnel dedicated to handling 

only domestic violence cases. There are two judges; a director; a resource coordinator for each judge; dedicated 

court officers and clerks; prosecutors who work exclusively in the Domestic Violence Bureau of the District 

Attorney’s Office; representatives from agencies who work with defendants. such as batterer intervention, 

substance abuse treatment, and probation, who serve as special liaisons with the Court; and victim service 

providers. including both the private non-profit service provider (Safe Horizon) and advocates employed by the 

District Attorney’s Office. In addition to their primary role of providing services to victims with cases pending in 

Court, the victim service providers also provide information from victims to the Court with victims’ permission. 

them, such as court, prosecutorial, and probation personnel, may not be accustomed to working with only one 

type of case and may not have intensive training in the special dynamics and needs of domestic violence cases. 

Training opportunities have been offered through formal means such as attendance at conferences sponsored a y national associations. CCI, a key court partner, has also coordinated formal training for a wide variety of 

partners in response to the specific needs of FDVC and its partner agencies. The most recent training, in June 

2000, was a multi-day training by David Adams of the EMERGE batterer intervention program. CCI is also 

sponsoring a series of state-wide Judicial Roundtables on domestic violence courts. In addition to formal 

training opportunities, much on-the-job training and mentoring have been used to help actors adjust to their 

new roles. For example, the Director worked very closely with the original judge in the early days of the 

Court’s operation, and with the second judge by coordinating meetings between him and all Court partners 

before the second part opened to make sure that he developed policies with all of the partners and that the two 

parts operated on consistent principles. The original judge also assisted the newer judge in adapting to 

working with these cases and within this model of case processing. 

been accustomed to working with this population but may not have traditionally worked closely with justice 

agencies. They may have needed to adjust their work styles to function effectively in this coordinated partnership approach. For example, batterer intervention providers have long taken court-referred clients, but until the 

advent of specialized court dockets, they may not have been required to become involved in partner meetings, 

have in-court staff to serve as liaisons, or use regular and formalized reporting mechanisms. 

Serving in this specialized capacity may involve adjustments for each of these system actors. Some of 

Other key players. such as victim advocates and defendant intervention and service providers, have long 

The Judges’ Role 

The judges take a key leadership role in implementing this model. The model’s success depends on them 

being able and willing to expand the traditional judicial role to include development and maintenance of 

working relationships with other community agencies, through convening regular partner meetings and special 

troubleshooting meetings as needed. They also must be willing to accept certain modifications of traditional 

udicial practices and priorities in order to implement a model per se, particularly a model that uses innovative 

appear before the Court regularly for monitoring, to enhance the goals of defendant supervision and accountability. A judge not accustomed to working within the guidance of a model may tend to resist implementing 

@ rocedures. For example. it is a policy of this approach that all pretrial defendants should be required to 

12 Speciaiized Feiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
any standard policy or procedure. viewing it as a restraint on his or her judicial independence. In particular, an 

unaccustomed judge may feel conflicted between the need to take special measures to achieve special goals, 

and the need to effectively manage his or her caseload and reduce the demand on Court resources by processing cases as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is not an easy balance to strike in these difficult and 

complicated cases. 

style. The judges’ tough stance on both the seriousness of the crime that brought the defendant to court and 

intolerance of further infractions is an important foundation of this model. This is very different from the judicial 

style of, for example, a drug court judge. While the drug court judge, with the intent to heal the defendant, is cast 

as a supporting force within the criminal justice system, the felony domestic violence judge is not. 

personal commitment from a judge, as well as a deep understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and 

how the legal system can best intervene. One way in which domestic violence cases have particularly frustrated police, prosecutors, and judges is when victims do not wish to participate in the system’s efforts tp 

protect them through legal intervention (arrest and prosecution of the case). A judge, and any other system 

actor for that matter. who understands the multitude of reasons a victim may not wish to participate or may 

even rally in support of her/his abuser (such as economic dependence on the abuser, fear of reprisal, or unhelpful experiences with the justice system in the past), and who understands that severing ties with the batterer 

and helping the system punish hidher crimes are often long-term goals which require many intermediate steps 

and “false starts” to be reached, is better fortified to deal with these complex and sometimes frustrating cases, 

The judges have developed personal styles that expresses their understanding of domestic violence cases 

and their commitment to the primary goals of victim safety and defendant accountability. They take pains to 

make a personal connection with defendants by very carefully explaining to them the terms and meaning of 

Court orders (such as protection orders or orders to batterer intervention or treatment), and the consequences 

for violating them. Through vertical adjudication, the defendant appears before only one Supreme Court 

judge, and the defendant may make many appearances over the course of pretrial monitoring, and postdisposition monitoring for probationers. The defendant learns that he’s not going to get lost in a fragmented 

system. One of the judges has even taken monitoring so far as to call defendants under curfew at home to 

ensure they’re complying with the terms of the curfew order, or to direct defendants to call his answering 

machine to register curfew compliance. 

The judges also take special care to convey the message that the state, not the victim, bears the responsibility for prosecuting the defendant, because the judges understand that if the victim is seen as responsible for 

the prosecution, she is more vulnerable to pressure and retaliation from the defendant. When issuing a 

protection order. the judges clearly explain to the defendant that it is the Court‘s order, not the victim’s order, 

and that only the Court can modify its terms, so the defendant will be answerable directly to them for any 

violations. When a victim wishes to speak in Court. the judges take herhis input through a victim advocate in 

a private setting, to emphasize that the system is prosecuting the case and to protect the victim from pressure 

and retaliation by the defendant - or his friends or family - attending Court. 

had the opportunity to make rulings which extend case law in innovative directions. For example, Court 

rulings have extended the use of the “battered women’s syndrome” defense to male victims of same-sex 

battering; have set new standards for assault in grand jury testimony, using a priniefncie standard of evidence 

while awaiting assessment of the longer-term nature of the injuries; have ruled that a defendant cannot use 

evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps of the victim’s phone in his defense, since the state and not the 

victim is the prosecuting party; and have established a legal basis for court orders to batterer intervention 

programs during the pre-disposition phase, which the defense bar has not challenged. 

With its emphasis on defendant monitoring and accountability, the FDVC model requires a certain judicial 

Taking responsibility day after day for these very serious and potentially explosive cases also requires a 

@ 

There are, however, certain rewards for working with these complex and difficult cases. The judges have 

Speoalized Felony Dornesbc Vdence Courts 13 

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.
ERTICAL PROCESSING AND STANDARD PRACTICES Y 

From the point of post-indictment arraignment, when a case first enters FDVC. it is handled by the same 

judge and a team of an assistant district attorney/victim advocate.’ This helps ensure that cases will be handled 

consistently over time and more efficiently than if new personnel frequently entered the case and needed time 

to become familiar with case file documents or have the victim tell her/his story again. Continuity of personnel 

also reinforces, for both the victim and the defendant, that they have name and face recognition and their case 

is not likely to “slip through the cracks.” 

Another way of promoting case processing consistency is the use of common practices or policies across 

domestic violence cases. As with the pre-FDVC period, it is standard practice for the supreme court judges to 

issge an order of protection at the first point of contact (post-indictment arraignment), and to make sure there is 

a valid order throughout case processing. Also, the judges frequently order participation in batterer intervention as a condition of pretrial release unless special conditions make it inappropriate (e.g., mental health 

barriers), and those convicted of felony offenses and sentenced to probation are nearly always assigned to 

intensive supervision by a special domestic Violence unit. In addition, the District Attorney’s Office uses an 

evidence-based prosecution policy. 

ENHANCED CASE INFORMATION FLOW 

In order to achieve such goals as defendant accountability and victim safety, it is crucial that the Court and 

the partner agencies exchange accurate and up-to-date information about key case events. Service providers 

must know when a defendant has been ordered to participate in their programs, so they can intake and register 

new clients in a timely manner. The Court must know when a defendant has violated a Court order, so it can 

ove swiftly to call himher to account for the violation. Several mechanisms are used to facilitate the flow of 

nformation among the Court and partner agencies. 

The central figure in information exchange is the resource coordinator, a Court employee who works exclusively for the domestic violence judge. Her role is to obtain, coordinate, and distribute case information 

among the partner agencies. She notifies the partner agencies of Court orders, changes in Court-ordered 

conditions, the status of orders of protection, and Court dispositions. She also routinely obtains information 

from the partner agencies before each Court date, with emergency updates as violations against victims or other 

special situations arise. She receives and reviews pre-sentence investigation reports and post-disposition 

violation reports from probation; compliance reports from the batterer intervention programs; notification from 

the District Attorney’s Office regarding rearrests and alleged violations of Court orders; and information from 

victim advocates about alleged violations of orders of protection. The resource coordinator is also responsible 

for accessing the Domestic Violence Registry3 at arraignment, so the judge can assess the history of violence 

and ascertain if a valid order of protection is in effect. At post-indictment arraignment, the judge obtains 

additional information from the assistant district attorney on the history of violence and the current family 

situation, including prior incidents, whether there is a gun in the home, the relationship between the victim and 

defendant, and whether there are children in common. Figure 1 illustrates how information flows among the 

Court and partner agencies. 

y“ 

’ The only exception occurs for some of the approximately 4% of cases which go to trial. In response to a rising caseload, 

in mid-1997 some trial cases were sent out to felony judges in other court parts to oversee the trial. The addition of the 

second FDVC part in April 1998 relieved this overload to a large degree, so that each Domestic Violence judge now 

usually handles his own trials. Cases that are convicted and sentenced to probation are then sent back to FDVC for post- 

@ isposition monitoring. An automated state-wide database registering all orders of protection issued by any court in cases meeting the Family 

Court‘s definition of domestic relationships: parties related by blood, marriage, or former marriage; or having a child in 

common. All FDVC orders of protection are to be entered into the Registry regardless of the nature of the parties’ 

relationship. 

14 Specialized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
FIGURE 1. Information Flow among Court and Partner Agencies 

J 

I Attorney De’ense ‘I \ 

Attorney’s 

Domestic 

Violence 

Intervention 

Resource 

Coordinator 

Probation 

Substance 

AbuseiMental 

Illness 

Treatment 

A+ Victim Advocates 

(Safe Horizon and 

District Attorney’s 

Counseling 

Services Unit 

advocates) 

Complaining 

witness 

(victim) 

Another mechanism to facilitate information flow is the judges’ use of designated time periods for calendar activities. One judge sets aside mornings throughout the week and the other judge designates a full day 

Once a week for calendaring. At these times, all arraignments and monitoring appearances for non-detained 

defendants and probationers (those who require the closest supervision) are held. These are the types of 

appearances which are most likely to benefit from the personal attendance of service providers, both defendant 

programs and victim advocates. The presence of program representatives for arraignments expedites the intake 

and placement of defendants into Court-ordered programs, and the availability of service providers to furnish 

up-to-the-minute case information enhances the judges’ ability to monitor compliance and respond to violations. By concentrating all these appearances into a specified time period, service providers know when they 

are most likely to be called on and make can sure they are prepared and available. 

The judges enhance both information flow and case processing efficiency by using expedited open file 

discovery. Under this policy, the District Attorney’s Office must provide open file discovery on all cases to the 

defense at felony arraignment or soon thereafter, making available key documents such as police reports and 

medical records. This obviates delays caused by routine discovery motions and disputes, and avoids use of 

Court resources to hear these disputes. Certain information is initially withheld to protect victim safety. The 

victim’s identifying information and the victim’s testimony portion of the grand jury proceeding transcripts are 

held back until the day of jury selection, to protect the victim from intimidation and retaliation until the case 

goes to trial (which very few actually do), when the full transcript must be released. 

The Technology Application 

an automated case-based system for reporting and accessing information on significant case developments. 

The core component of the Technology Application is funded by grants to OCA from the Violence Against 

Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice (a Grants to Encourage Arrest Policics grant) and the New 

York State Department of Criminal Justice Services (a STOP Violence Against Women grant). The State 

Justice Institute made a grant to CCI to fund Resource Link, which uses Intranet technology to electronically 

link the Court’s core application with key partner agencies, including the District Attorney’s Office, defense 

attorneys, Safe Horizon, New York Forensics and ATV (bstterer intervention programs), and Probation. This 

A special project to improve information flow among the Court and partner agencies involved developing 

e 

Speoalized Felony Domestic Violence Cocrts 15 

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.
ystem allows each partner to input information and access selected information provided by certain other a artners (based on each agency‘s need to know and legal rights to access) for up-to-the-minute information on 

Court orders and disposition. batterers’ compliance with Court mandates, family profile information, and 

alleged violations of orders of protection. 

The Technology Application also provides for the creation and execution of protection orders electronically through an electronic signature pad used by the judges and defendants (for in-court service). Orders are 

then accessible at any time by all partners. The Application also allows an automated search of the state’s 

Domestic Violence Registry, and will permit orders to be electronically uploaded to the Registry. eliminating a 

potential for delay and error caused by manual back entry. In addition. several other forms, such as sentencing 

orders, will also be available electro~~ically. Appendix A presents documents that provide a schematic overview of the automated links between the Court and partner agencies; a summary of the modules and purposes 

of the system; and sample screens from the Court. the clerk’s, and the service provider applications. 

An Advisory Board, consisting of representatives from CCI, the Office of Court Administration, the District Attorney’s Office, Safe Horizon, the New York City Police Department, NYCAAP (a batterer intervention 

program formerly connected with the Court), and the Department of Probation, has provided consultation and 

feedback to the Technology Application. The Board met three times - in August 1998, January 1999, and 

September 1999 - to preview drafts of the application and review issues such as security and access, implementation and training, hardware requirements, and data entry procedures. In addition, technology staff have 

regularly attended FDVC partners’ meetings to answer questions, address issues, and get feedback on the 

application’s use. 

The Technology Application development began in late 1997, opened in the Courts in April 2000, expanded to partner agencies from the summer of 2000 to early 2001, and instituted components of the protection 

order function earlier this year (orders can be created and executed electronically, and the system can be used 

to search the Domestic Violence Registry, but the link to upload new orders directly to the Registry is not yet complete but is now under testing). The Application’s development consisted of eight major tasks: 

0 Needs assessment. The technology team conducted extensive and repeated interviews throughout 

1998 with many staff from all the major partners to develop a detailed understanding of current procedures for keeping records and exchanging information. to identify each partner’s needs for additional 

information. They also identified and addressed the partners’ security concerns. 

0 Prototvpe Development. The technology team continued to meet with staff from the partner agencies 

as they developed a prototype on which the working relational database is based. This was a key step 

in obtaining further feedback from potential users about needs, and the usability of the model, and 

gave users an opportunity to preview and provide input on draft screen designs and data entry procedures. 

0 Application development. The core application in conjunction with Resource Link has five key modules: compliance, case activities, Court functions, partner links, and reporting. As presented in 

Appendix A, these modules in the core application include a function to manage the daily Court calendar; summary history, Court action, and compliance information on cases; a clerk’s worksheet for 

entering Court actions; a function to produce Court forms, including order of protection forms; and a 

link to query the state’s Domestic Violence Registry. The Resource Link component links information 

from victim services, batterer intervention programs, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and Probation. 

Expanding connections with the state’s Domestic Violence Registry. The link between this system and 

the Registry will allow two-way lines of conununication, so that FDVC can make electronic queries of 

protection orders listed in the Registry to assess defendants’ domestic violence history (this function is 

currently operational), and it can transmit protection orders it issues to the Registry (this fiinction is 

now under testing). This will eliminate the need for clerks to enter protection order infomation by 

hand. thereby saving staff resources, time delays, and data entry errors. 

User training. Extensive training has been conducted with all on-site and off-site users of the Application. In addition. security procedures have been instituted to ensure that only authorized users have 

0 

16 Speoaiized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
access to the Application. As the application is finalized, a user’s manual is in the final stages of development and will be distributed to all users, including those in the Unified Court System’s 

Department of Technology. 

lnzplemeiiratiorz. The core application was implemented first in the Court from late 1999 to early 

2000. The Resource Link component was added to incorporate the partner agencies, during the first 

half of 2000. The protection order component was rolled out from fall 2000 to early 2001. Partners are 

now entering and accessing infomation directly from the Application, ensuring comprehensive, up-todate communication between the Court and other partner agencies (a few agencies don’t yet have access so their information is entered by the Court’s resource coordinators). Security issues are 

addressed at two levels. The first concern is to ensure that unauthorized users do not have access to 

the system. This is addressed through the use of a proprietary Intranet tool that is run using Microsoft’s Internet Information Server, which is a closed system and completely unavailable to the public. 

The second layer of security safeguards imposes restrictions on access rights for authorized users. 

Since access is granted even to authorized users on the basis of need for each piece of information and 

legal rights to that information, various types of access are permitted. These types include the ability 

to create, update, delete, and/or read a record. A user may have more than one type of access to a record, or no access at all. Individual users have unique log-in passwords which are linked to their access 

rights and permit an audit trail to trace entries into the Application. 

0 Dissemination. The final application will be publicized through CCI’ s website; distribution of a handbook to Court administrators, planners, and libraries on request; the availability of technical assistance 

at CCI for those interested in using the application; and by making a version of the application available through the National Center for State Courts’ Technology Lab. 

0 Evaluation. The Urban Institute served as the independent evaluator of this effort. The key technology application personnel dere interviewed to understand the goals and methods of the project. Users 

were interviewed after the Application was fully implemented to assess their reactions to the system 

and its impact on how well information is exchanged among partners. 

0 

Another component of the Technology project involves developing a video conferencing link between the 

Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and targeted police precincts in Brooklyn. All of the technology is ready 

and the hardware requirements specified and the Technology team is currently working out final details with 

police and District Attorney administrators. Police personnel have been trained and their access is scheduled to 

begin shortly. In addition, several police precincts will also gain access to the Technology Application. 

Feedback on the Technology Application 

In April 2001, evaluators met with project planners and users to discuss their assessments of the development, support for, use, and impact of the Technology Application. We also discussed areas for future 

development of the Application. Staff interviewed included CCI planners; judges, resource coordinators, and 

clerks of the Court; District Attorney’s Office managers; victim advocates from Safe Horizons and the District 

Attorney’s Office; and batterer intervention providers. They were generally quite pleased with the project, but 

suggested some areas they would like to see developed in the future. 

The developmentprocess. Most staff felt that they were consulted and their input utilized when the 

project was being developed. The Application was developed through a microscopic scrutiny of the information each agency obtains and each agency needs, and agencies’ responsibilities for sharing 

information. This process helped to identify gaps in communication patterns prior to the implementation of the Application. The Application helped address these gaps and enhance accountability for 

information-sharing by making it very explicit who was to provide what information and when, and 

making it easy to provide and obtain information. 

Specialized felony Domestic Vioience Courts 17 

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.
e Use of the application. While the introduction of any new technology requires an adjustment period, 

staff generally find the system easy to use. Some staff observed that a few operational challenges still 

remain. These include difficulty correcting previous data entry errors (users must contact technology 

staff to authorize changes to entered data, to preserve data integrity and prevent erroneous changes); a 

short period of inactivity triggering automatic shutdown (stemming from a concern for privacy); 

printing glitches (for example, it can be cumbersome to print out several screens of narrative data); and 

rigidity of search mechanisms (for example, to locate a case by the indictment number, it must be entered into the search engine using the exact same format as it was entered into the database, so that a 

misplaced dash or slash results in a failed search). 

0 Application support. Users received a good deal of initial training when the Application was being 

rolled out, and CCI provides introductory training to new staff as needed. Users observed that ongoing 

support for the Application and trouble-shooting resources are generally available and helpful. Some 

problems require help from CCI’s technology resources and others require assistance from the 

agency’s internal technology support. and the users have by this time sorted out which types of prob- 

]ems to take to which source of support. The users’ manual under development will likely be another 

valuable source of support. 

Irnpact of the Application. Most agencies make extensive use of the Application and find that it increases their efficiency a great deal. They are generally pleased with the information they provide and 

the information they receive through the Application. The Application makes it easier for agencies to 

fulfill responsibilities such as filling out protection order request forms. Some noted that the Application’s ease of use encourages them to record more information than they had previously. The calendar 

function helps a great deal at keeping partners abreast of upcoming events on their cases, and the caselevel information (such as protection orders issued) is also very useful. While communication links 

among partner agencies have certainly been enhanced by the Application, staff from several agencies 

noted that they would like to see future developments that would strengthen these links even more. A 

system of automatic e-mails, or very salient flags, would be helpful at notifying partner agencies when 

a new case has been initialized. Some agencies would like more details on court order conditions and 

victim advocate reports to help them fulfill their functions better (which would require a careful examination of legal rights to access information). Finally, some partner agency staff commented that 

they would like to be able to use the database to compile aggregate statistics. such as the number of defendants currently ordered to batterer intervention programs. Court research staff currently perform 

these functions to document Court and partner agencies’ operations. 

I 

0 

0 

DEFENDANT MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Defendants are kept under close scrutiny by both the Court and several partner agencies. This is central to 

the goals of protecting victim safety and holding offenders accountable for crimes they have committed. 

FDVC supervises defendants throughout the pendency of their case, and even beyond disposition for those 

sentenced to probation. Routine supervision procedures, such as regular monitoring appearances in Court and 

program participation, are used along with expedited case calendaring on an as-needed basis. 

Cases first enter FDVC for the post-indictment arraignment. At this point the defendant is arraigned on 

the charges in the indictment, to which he/she must plead guilty or not guilty, and a renewed bail application 

may be made. An order of protection is always issued. There is always one in effect from the criminal court, 

but it by definition expires at the Supreme Court appearance. Defendants may be detained in Jail for the predisposition period, released on bail. or occasionally released on their own recognizance. Released defendants 

are almost uniformly required to participate in batterer intervention as a condition of bail (and m;i; also be 

(Iteferred to substance abuse or mental health treatment if warranted), and are required to make a status appearance in Court every two weeks to review their compliance with Court-ordered conditions. Detained defendants 

make a status appearance every month for compliance monitoring. Programs involved in the cases are expected to provide compliance data in time for these status appearances, typically through written reports to the 

18 Specializeo Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
resource coordinator. who shares them with the judge. Victim advocates and the District Attorney’s Office 

also provide reports on alleged violations of Court-ordered conditions. 

effects are not the focus of the court. In that research on the effectiveness particularly of batterer intervention 

is both limited and inconclusive. any certainty that the intervention will lead to reduced battering is lacking. 

This perspective may differ from that of the programs themselves and from other domestic violence court 

models that have closer ties to the drug court movement or those that deal with misdemeanor-level offenses. 

The programs. however, do provide a unique opportunity for the FDVC to keep tabs on the defendants even 

between court appearances. On average, a defendant attends two batterer intervention sessions between 

appearances; if these mis’sed the judge is notified and can act appropriately. 

period of probation, with or without having first served a jail sentence. For compliance monitoring, probationers appear in Court once every two to three months until the Court is satisfied, and information is shared 

between the Court and partner agencies involved in the case as in pre-disposition monitoring. This is a sharp 

contrast to standard case processing where a defendant only appears in the post-disposition period for an 

alleged violation of probation. In addition to the Court-based monitoring, most felony probationers are 

assigned to intensive supervised probation in Probation’s Domestic Violence Unit, which requires more 

frequent visits and more intensive monitoring by their probation officers than traditional probation. Some 

probationers are assigned to the Start program, which uses electronic surveillance and victim alarms to enforce 

probation conditions. Further, probationers are almost always ordered to attend (or complete if they started as 

a condition of bail) batterers intervention in addition to probation monitoring - the judge explicitly makes this 

a condition of probation. He may add - in appropriate cases - substance abuse or mental illness treatment 

programs as probation deems appropriate. Again, the court uses the post-disposition programmatic interventions as an opportunity to further monitor the defendant, especially since court appearances are less frequent in 

this stage. The Court receives compliance infomiation from probation officers and other batterer intervention 

and service providers as appropriate, as well as reports from victim advocates, so that defendants can be held 

accountable for violations in the post-disposition probationary period as during the pre-disposition period. 

case for an expedited appearance if conditions warrant. This might be done if an advocate reports an alleged 

violation of an order of protection. an assistant district attorney reports a rearrest, the batterer intervention 

program reports threats of imminent harm, or other indicators that swift action is needed to preserve victim 

safety. The judge might also bring the defendant in for a special appearance if he or she has violated orders to 

treatment programs or conditions of probation, to demonstrate that the Court is serious about compliance with 

its orders. 

The Court extended its post-disposition monitoring in the fall of 2000 to include parolees. Offenders 

sentenced to state prisons are now required to report to the Court upon release on parole, in a cooperative effort 

with state prison and parole authorities. 

Batterer intervention programs are used by the court almost wholly as a tool for monitoring; rehabilitative 

Court monitoring extends beyond case disposition for defendants hho are convicted and sentenced to a 

In addition to the regularly scheduled status appearances in Court, the judge has the option of advancing a 

VICTIM ADVOCACY AND SERVICES 

Enhanced resources are available to ensure that all victims have access to advocacy and counseling services. Advocates from Safe Horizon and the Counseling Services Unit of the District Attorney’s Office are 

stationed in the District Attorney’s Office. When a victim comes in to meet with an assistant district attorney 

in preparation for the grand jury, she or he also meets with an advocate. Advocates also do outreach to victims 

who do not come into the office. These staffers are responsible for providing both emergency and long-term 

services to the victim, including safety planning, referrals for medical services. relocation assistance, and 

counseling as needed. The advocates maintain regular contact with their clients to sze how they’re doing and 

to check whether there have been any alleged violations of orders of protection prior to each Court appearance. 

This information is reported to the Court through the resource coordinator. The advocates also keep victims 

informed of progress in the Court case and any orders issued by the Court. The paired team - the assistant 

district attorney and the advocate - works with the victim throughout the Court case (vertical prosecution and 

Specialized felony Dornest/c Violence Courts 19 

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.
sistance). Advocates continue to serve victims in the post-disposition period through direct contacts and 

The victim advocates’ ability to serve victims beyond case disposition and provide information to the 

Court on cases assigned to probation is enhanced by formal links between the advocates and probation officers. 

A mechanism has been established for providing probation officers the names of advocates working with 

victims in cases assigned to them, and vice versa, enabling these staff to work together on cases as the need 

arises. In addition, advocates have provided training to probation officers in how to respond to victims who 

approach the officers for assistance. This relationship is a focus for future development by both parties. 

Another method of protection offered to victims is the use of the order of protection. The judges ensure 

that a valid order of protection is in effect and will not expire before the next return date for every defendant, 

both detained and non-detained. An order of protection is issued at the first appearance in the FDVC, as the 

criminal court order of protection in effect always expires on this date. The Court has the authority to issue 

temporary orders of protection lasting several months, and does SO.^ A final order of protection is routinely 

issued at the time of disposition (if a conviction occurs), and can be valid for many years. The assistant 

district attorney prepares the order and provides it to the judge for signature. The judge reads and explains the 

terms of the order to the defendant on the record and has the Court officer serve it. The order is entered into 

the Domestic Violence Registry, copies are distributed to the District Attorney, the court clerk (for entry into 

registry), the police, the judge (who keeps it in his file), the defendant, and a copy is mailed to the victim. An 

extra copy is now made for the victim advocate who maintains a file of all orders. If the victim never gets the 

mailed copy, this ensures that herhis advocate can provide a copy. 

@ oordination with probation officers. 

RECOGNITION FOR THE COURT 

FDVC has received local, national, and international attention for its innovative approach to adjudication. 

articles featuring the Court have appeared in thi New York Times and numerous other newspapers and 

magazines, and segments on the Court have appeared on MSNBC and FOX. See Appendix B for a selection 

of these articles. Visitors to the Court include judges, law enforcement, and victims’ groups not only from 

across the state and over 20 other states, but also from Iceland. Germany, China, and Taiwan. The Director 

currently hosts one or two delegations of visitors every few weeks. This Court has increasingly become a statewide model for other specialized domestic violence courts. In June 1998, the Bronx Domestic Violence 

Criminal Court, a high-volume misdemeanor court adapted from the Brooklyn model and planned with the 

help of CCI staff, opened. Similar approaches have also started for Buffalo City Court (started in March 1999 

for misdemeanors), Westchester County (started in June 1999 to handle misdemeanors and felonies), Bronx 

Supreme Court (a felony court started in October 1999), and Suffolk County (opened in October 2000 for 

misdemeanors and felonies). 

The Court has also obtained grant support and other recognition from the U.S. Department of Justice and 

other funders. The Technology Application is funded by a Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies from the 

Violence Against Women Office in the Justice Department, a STOP Violence Against Women Grant from the 

State of New York, and a grant from the State Justice Institute to support the Resource Link component. The 

Violence Against Women Office has also awarded a Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies to fund a children’s 

coordinator position in the court who would act as a liaison and facilitate relations between FDVC, the Family 

Court, and the child welfare system. Another Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies, which will support defendant case management at the Court, has recently been awarded. This position will enhance the Court’s ability 

to monitor defendants in the pre-disposition period and obtain referrals for hard-to-place defendants. 

Another special project is the Domestic Violence Roundtable, supported by a Grant to Encourage Arrest 

Policies from the Violence Against Women Office. This is a series of three roundtables to bring together 

Supreme Court orders of protection are usually full orders (which include no-contact conditions), but can be limited at 

the victim’s request (allowing contact but forbidding abuse), mediated through an advocate and conveyed privately to the 

judge. Advocates are involved in requests to limit an order. and these requests are not handled in open court, to assure 

the order of protection meets the victim’s needs and wishes free from pressure or intimidation. 

20 Speciaiized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
judges, court administrators, and others, from across New York and from other states, to exchange infoimation 

and ideas on domestic violence courts. The goals are to build networks, and to further refine and publicize the 

specialized court approach. Two of the roundtables have now been held, and the third is being planned. 

The Court was featured as a “Best Practice” model site at a nine-state regional conference on domestic 

violence interstate enforcement sponsored by the Department of Justice. Judge Leventhal received an “In-theTrenches” award from the New York Lawyers’ Committee Against Domestic Violence. Both judges, the 

Director, and other Court staff have presented the Court model at a number of national conferences: 

0 National District Attorney’s Association Violence Against Women Leadership Summit; 

0 American Society of Criminology’s Annual Meeting; 

0 Office of Justice Program’s Executive Office of Weed and Seed’s Court-Linked Community Justice 

Innovations Workshop; 

0 National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies’ conference; 

0 National Association of Court Managers’ conference; 

0 National College of District Attorneys’ annual domestic violence conference; 

0 Senate and House Judiciary Committee staff briefing on accomplishments under the Violence Against 

Women Act; and 

0 American Probation and Parole Association conference. 

CCI, which has been a key founding and guiding partner in developing the Court model, received an Innovations in American Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University 

and the Ford Foundation. The CentFr was honored for its unique role in creating new court prototypes, 

including the FDVC. The Center has also recently been honored by an advocacy group in New York, STEPS 

to End Family Violence, for its work developing domestic violence courts. 

Specialized felony Dornestlc Vroience Courts 21 

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.
eermination, Implementation, and 

Evolution of the Court Model 

The Court model has its roots in many factors, including a growing awareness of the need for an intensive 

and coordinated approach to these difficult and complicated cases; pioneering efforts with specialized dockets 

and other critical elements of the model in other jurisdictions; innovative approaches to case handling already 

used in Kings County; the support of administrative judges and other influential personnel; and the catalyst of 

a high-visibility domestic violence homicide. 

ROOTS OF THE FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT MODEL 

Defendants in domestic violence cases often pose a continuing risk to victims even after criminal prosecution has begun, since they may be released during the pretrial period and are certainly motivated to pressure 

the victim into refusing to participate with prosecution, often through threats, intimidation, or other forms of 

abuse. Responding to the growing recognition of this risk, court systems have recently begun to develop 

effective mechanisms for monitoring defendant compliance with court conditions, ensuring victim safety, and 

communicating and coordinating with other criminal justice and social service agencies active in these cases. 

The importance of these procedures is broadly recognized by both court personnel and victims themselves. In 

a series of round table discussions led by staff from CCI, judges handling domestic violence cases reported a o? ressing need for expanded information about tQe victim’s medical condition, living conditions, and the 

defendant’s substance abuse history and current treatment mandates. In a CCI focus group with victims of 

domestic violence, lack of information was again a common theme. Participants wanted judges to know more 

about a defendant’s history of violence and continued threats. They also wanted more information about their 

cases, as one stated a need for “communication between victims and court personnel to keep victims aware of 

case progress.” 

domestic violence courts to develop a consistent, unified response to domestic violence crime. A specialized 

court in Dade County, Florida has focused on developing mechanisms to respond to the often-linked problems 

of substance abuse and domestic violence (Goldkamp, 1997). Research on a misdemeanor domestic violence 

court in Milwaukee, which attempted to reduce high dismissal rates - caused by victim intimidation and 

resulting reluctance to participate with prosecution - by instituting aggressive measures to speed up case 

processing, found that faster case processing time was associated with less pretrial crime and higher conviction 

rates (Davis. Smith, and Nickles, 1997). Specialized domestic violence courts have been gaining in popularity 

in recent years; the National Center for State Courts has recently completed a National Institute of Justicefunded survey of all specialized domestic violence courts in the nation. This effort catalogued these courts, 

documented their goals and operations, and developed performance measures for use in future efforts to 

evaluate their success (National Center for State Courts, 2000). 

Very little evaluation of specialized domestic violence courts has been done, since they are fairly new. 

However, research in related areas documents the potential of many of the critical elements of FDVC’s model 

in improving case processing and outcomes. Many highly respected experts repeatedly stress the potential of a 

coordinated. systemic approach to domestic violence (e.g., Hofford, 1991; Hart, 1995; Littel et al. 1997). 

Although evaluation of coordinated approaches is very difficult and so not plentiful, early findings indicate that 

partnerships involving criminal justice, victim service, and other agencies can be effective. TolXdn and Weisz a 1995) found that advocacy services to encourage victim participation in the court process, coupled with 

aggressive prosecution practices, led to a reduction in recidivism. Gamache, Edleson, and Schock (1988) 

retrospectively studied three communities with coordinated community intervention projects and found 

To address these concerns, jurisdictions around the country have begun to experiment with specialized 

22 Speciaiized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
increases in arrests, convictions, and court orders to participate in batterer intervention. Essential features for 

successful implementation of a coordinated approach to domestic violence were identified by Hofford and 

Harrell (1993) in an 1 1-site evaluation. They include: 1) designated personnel in each agency, 2) written 

policies defining roles and responsibilities of partners, 3) strong leadership which needs to include strong 

support from the judges, 4) cross training of staff in multiple agencies, 5) vigorous prosecution, and 6) formal 

monitoring of partnership perforniance (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993). 

treatment services and monitoring them through regular and frequent status appearances in Court, during both 

pre-disposition and after sentencing, to increase compliance with court orders. The Court routinely requires 

participation in batterer intervention. Research on batterer intervention shows some indicators of success at 

reducing recidivism when batterers complete the program (Gondolf, 1997). When compliance with program 

attendance and participation is not closely monitored, attrition is widespread and effectiveness suffers (Hamburger and Hastings, 1990; Harrell, 1991). Failure to appear for intervention constitutes a violation of the 

release order and can be used as a basis for sanctions. Sanctions may be effective in increasing program 

attendance. which has been shown to be related to program impact (Gondolf, 1997). With limited and inconclusive research on the effectiveness of batterer intervention, these programs are used by the FDVC primarily 

as a tool for monitoring. 

The inclusion of substance abuse treatment programs as partner agencies is very important for ensuring 

that substance-involved defendants receive treatment. Without special coordination arrangements, it is not 

likely that batterers’ substance abuse treatment needs would receive attention; research has found that fewer 

than one-third of substance abuse treatment programs have linkages with batterer intervention programs 

(Bennett and Lawson, 1994). 

Treatment referrals coupled with intensive monitoring have been used extensively in specialized drug 

courts, including the Brooklyn Treatment Court developed by New York’s Unified Court System and CCI, 

setting a precedent for the use of these techniques in this Court. Another key feature pioneered in the Midtown 

Community Court, another criminal justice initiative of CCI, is the resource coordinator position to enhance 

communication flow among the many public and private agencies involved in these cases. 

safety and quality of life and are associated with reductions from the levels of violence that preceded the order 

(Keilitz, 1997). However, victims face many bamers to get protection orders enforced in jurisdictions that require 

them to file contempt charges and request the court to schedule a contempt hearing (Buzawa and Buzawa, 1990). 

Building on this and additional research indicating that protection orders require enforcement and subsequent 

prosecution of violations to be effective (Harrell, Smith, and Newmark, 1993), FDVC takes proactive measures to 

identify and punish violations of orders of protection through advocates’ outreach to victims. 

Another critical strategy of FDVC involves referring defendants/offenders to batterer intervention or other 

Protection orders, which form another cornerstone of FDVC’s approach, contribute to victim perceptions of 

Local Influences in the Development of the Model 

When the FDVC model was under development, Brooklyn courts already had experience with such innovative practices as treatment referrals, defendadoffender monitoring, and, in the Brooklyn Treatment Court, a 

resource coordinator to enhance communication. The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office also had a number 

of progressive policies and practices in place, including a specialized domestic violence bureau, vertical 

prosec~tion.~ pro-prosecution policies, an expanded definition of domestic violence, and the use of prosecution-based advocates specializing in domestic violence (though referrals were at that time received on an ad 

hoc basis and the advocates provided more limited case services). Safe Horizon also had advocates in the 

courthouse, but they did not specialize in domestic violence cases. While not much research exists to document the effectiveness of special prosecution units, approximately half of medium and large prosecution offices 

now have special domestic violence units (Rebovich, 1996). These units encourage vigorous prosecution by 

The vertical prosecution model begins when the case is presented to a grand jury for indictment. From that point on a 

single assistant district attorney/advocate team handles the case. Prior to that point, a case is typically handled by two 

different assistant district attorneys: one at the Early Case Assessment Bureau who makes the initial charging decision, 

and another for criminal court arraignment. 

5 

Specia/ired Felony Dornestlc Vioience Courts 23 

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.
nding status to domestic violence cases, providing resources for prosecution, and allowing screening criteria ar o broaden so that more cases can be charged and pursued (Gamer and Fagan, 1997). Since its establishment, 

the Domestic Violence Bureau has needed and obtained increased resources supported by the trend in recent 

years of decreased felony crime overall but a rise in domestic violence crime due to enhanced legislation, proarrest policies, and the Bureau’s expanded definition of domestic violence. 

Buzawa, 1990). While these policies are intended to relieve the victim of the burden of prosecution and thus 

protect her/him from retaliation, critics argue that too rigid a policy may be counterproductive to victim 

empowerment and safety concerns (Ford, 1991). The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office follows an evidencebased prosecution policy. carefully examining victims’ requests to drop cases and pursuing prosecution when at 

all possible. Victim service providers, such as Safe Horizon advocates and the District Attorney’s Office advocates, both of whom physically work in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s space, can be invaluable in helping 

victims through the maze of criminal justice and social services, enhancing safety through lethality assessment and 

safety planning, and promoting victim input into the process and resulting empowerment (Hart, 1996). 

The progressive policies of the District Attorney’s Office Domestic Violence Bureau, an increasing public 

awareness about domestic violence and the need for intensification of services, and a look toward innovative 

criminal justice responses all led to discussions regarding a specialized domestic violence court part a year or 

more before the FDVC opened. Participants in these early discussions to develop the court model included the 

Honorable Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of the State of New York (the highest ranking judge in the state), the 

Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administratjve Judge of the State of New York, the Honorable Michael 

Pesce, Chief Administrative Judge of the Second Judicial District (Brooklyn and Staten Island), Michael 

Magnani of the Office of Court Administration, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes and other District 

Attorney’s Office administrators, and John Feinblatt, Director of the Center for Court Innovation. 

Another recent innovation is the adoption of evidence-based and other pro-prosecution policies (Buzawa and 

While the Court model took root and was developed over a period of about one year before opening, a 

@ragic case in early 1996 and the ensuing intensive media attention served as a catalyst to its implementation. 

Just three weeks after a judge lowered bail allowing for his release, a man who had been arrested for making 

threatening calls killed his estranged partner. Justice system failures to convey and respond to relevant 

information contributed to this tragedy. The case was handled by several different prosecutors and judges; the 

defendant’s violent history, including a prior attempt to kidnap his partner and weapons possession, was not 

factored into the bail request; the police were not informed of the defendant’s release status; and, as one media 

article put it, “at a final court date, no one seemed aware that [the defendant] could not be accounted for.” 

In the wake of this tragedy, and at the prompting of New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye with the 

support of Kings County District Attorney Charles Nynes, the specialized felony court idea came to life within 

months. Chief Judge Kaye brought in CCI to help design and implement the Court model. Director Emily 

Sack, on the CCI staff, has worked very closely with FDVC and partner agency personnel since shortly before 

the Court opened. The Court has also received the support of the Chief Clerk of the Criminal Term of the 

Kings County Supreme Court, Jim Imperatrice, and his staff. 

funding was used to support this Court, though the court did fund the specialized position of resource coordinator. However, it was not until the end of 1996 that Court and other resources were in place to support full 

implementation of the model. with the resource coordinator and additional advocates from Safe Horizon. The 

original judge had a limited amount of experience with domestic violence cases; he was selected rather for his 

dedication, professionalism, intellectual interests, willingness to learn about new areas, and openness to 

implementing a new approach. He received training in domestic violence cases through formal opportunities 

such as a site visit to Quincy. Massachusetts’ Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, and by working closely 

with the Director on a day-to-day basis in the early period. The judge built up his caseload by taking all new 

felony domestic violence cases (just indicted and entering the felony courts) from the time he assumed the 

eench. and by taking over selected pending cases from other judges. who tended to transfer the newer cases. 

FDVC opened in June 1996 with a judge, a Director, and dedicated clerks and court officers. No outside 

24 Specidlzed felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
CONTEXT IN WHICH THE MODEL BEGAN IMPLEMENTATION 

FDVC was implemented in the context of a variety of progressive policies and resources that underscored the 

seriousness of domestic violence cases and provided service options to the Court and other key actors, as shown in 

Figure 2. The District Attorney’s Office already had in place a specialized bureau. an expanded definition of 

domestic violence, a pro-prosecution policy, and advocacy resources to enhance victim assistance. Safe Horizon 

also had an advocacy presence in the courthouse. NYCAAP was offering batterer intervention to felony defendants, the only such program in the city to accept felons and those charged with felonies at that time. 

Key legislation included the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322, 18 U.S.C. 

2265,2266), which addressed interstate enforcement of protection orders and prohibitions against firearms 

possession by those subject to protection orders. State legislation (the Family Protection and Domestic 

Violence Intervention Act of 1994, Laws of 1994, ch. 222, 224) effective in early 1995 established concurrent 

jurisdiction between criminal and family courts; allowed prosecutonal access to family court records; established a state-wide protection order registry; and provided felony charges for certain protection-order 

violations. Violations previously deemed a misdemeanor could be charged as criminal contempt in the first 

degree, a class E felony, if there were repeat violations (two or more criminal contempt convictions within five 

years), or if the violation involved intentional or reckless causation of physical injury or property damage in 

excess of $250. Additional provisions of the Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act 

became effective in January 1996, mandating probable cause arrest for felony offenses and protection-order 

violations. The New York City Police Department implemented mandatory arrest policies for family offenses 

in 1994, when the Act was signed, but well before these provisions took effect legally. Sentencing guidelines, 

also in effect prior to FDVC’s opening, specified indeterminate sentencing for felonies, as well as minimum 

and maximum terms based on the severity of the current offense and the offender’s criminal history. 

0 

HOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL CHANGED CASE PROCESSING 

After the arrest, all cases are evaluated by the Early Case Assessment Bureau (ECAB) of the District Attorney’s Office, which determines the nature of the case and the charges to be pursued. Those identified as 

domestic violence are stamped “DV” and referred to the Domestic Violence Bureau. Cases are arraigned in 

criminal court and those with felony-level charges are presented to the grand jury for indictment. Indicted 

cases are then adjourned to the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over felony cases. These 

procedures for processing cases prior to indictment have not changed with the advent of the FDVC. 

The creation of FDVC has, however, transformed the handling of indicted felony domestic violence cases 

in Brooklyn. Before the Court was established, domestic violence felonies were assigned to prosecutors from a 

special domestic violence bureau, who treated them, in most respects, like all other felonies. After indictment, 

the cases were arraigned in an all-purpose court part and then adjourned to one of the many Supreme Court 

parts that handle indicted felonies for subsequent adjudication. There were no special services or programs 

attached to these parts; bail conditions (other than protective orders) were rarely imposed; and sentence 

conditions were not imposed on an organized or consistent basis. Services for victims were available only on 

an emergency or ad hoc basis by DA advocates, and only specifically when a referral from an assistant district 

attorney was made. There was no special monitoring by a dedicated judge during either the pre-disposition or 

post-disposition periods. 

Since the implementation of FDVC, all indicted domestic violence felonies have been adjourned directly 

to the Court for felony arraignment and all subsequent adjudication. The dedicated judges and teams of 

prosecutor/advocate handle cases using vertical models of prosecution and adjudication. The Court features 

enhanced monitoring and services. These include the addition of Safe Horizon advocates to provide additional 

victim advocacy and their integration with the District Attorney’s Office advocates. the implementation of a 

systemic link between all victims and an advocate, the expansion of case services to cover the duration of the 

felony case, batterers‘ intervention services, substance abuse and mental health services for defendants as 

needed, intensive supervised probation, and both regular and emergency Court appearances to monitor compliance with Court orders. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how case processing has changed with the advent of this 

specialized Court. 

Spec/a/ized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 25 

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.
FIGURE 2. Timeline of Key Events Prior to the Court's Opening 

I 

I I 

begins opeiations a: 

the only hatterer 

tieatnient program 

accepting felony 

defendants rii NYC 

1~94: NYPD implements 

nem procedures for family 

offenses (including niustarrest policy domestic 

incident reports and end 

of desk appearance 

tickets on family offenses) 

1994 

1990: Domestic 

Violence Bureau 

of the District 

Attorney's Office 

opens, with 

separate felony 

and misdenieanor units 

1995 I 1996 

dct '95: Victim 

advocate positions 

within the DonieStlC 

Violence Buieau of 

the District Attoriney's 

Office are 

established 

I_ and May hlisdenieanor '96: Feloiiy 

Domestic Violence 

Bweaus oi the 

District Attoinev s 

Office comhirie 

kdy '96: District 

Attorney's definition 

of tloiriestic violence 

expands to incliide 

all intiniate partners 

elder abuse, ar?d 

pareiii'addt child 

relationsliips 

Categories 

blue -- police -- legislative 

led -_ District Attorney ptrrpl. -- offender services 

green --court black -- research & development 

26 Specidized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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 CONTEXTUAL CHANGES SINCE THE MODEL WAS IMPLEMENTED 

Since FDVC opened in June 1996. additional key events in the Court’s environment have occurred to influService resources, including additional legal defense services and TASC services for substance-abusing 

ence how it and its partner agencies have functioned (see Figure 5, Tirneliize of Key Events Since June 1996). 

defendants, were put into place about the time the Court opened. Additional victim service providers from 

Safe Horizon were brought on board, and the Court had hired a resource coordinator to work with the original 

judge within six months of FDVC’s opening. By mid-1997, grant funding was available for the development 

of technology to enhance communication among the court and partner agencies. In 1998, the Federation of 

Employment and Guidance Services’ (FEGS) Link program was available to assist mentally ill jail and prison 

inmates with their transition back into the community. All these developments supported the operation of a 

Court model that seeks to integrate treatment services with case adjudication in a coordinated network of 

community agencies. 

fect in September 1996, profoundly influencing the Court and partner agencies. Protection-order violations 

previously chargeable as a class E felony, criminal contempt in the first degree, were upgraded to aggravated 

criminal contempt, a class D felony. New provisions for the class E criminal contempt charge expanded its 

scope to include conduct that involves a display of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; stalking that 

causes reasonable fear of injury or death; telephone, electronic, or mail harassment that causes reasonable fear 

of injury or death; and repeat phone calls to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm. This meant that FDVC began 

receiving more protection-order violations that would otherwise have been charged as misdemeanors, and that 

conduct previously chargeable as the lowest-grade felony was now upgraded to be a more serious felony, 

giving the prosecutor more bargaining room in plea negotiations. Additional state legislation effective in 

December 1998 (The Interstate Enfbrcement of Protection Orders, Laws of 1998, ch. 597; S 7589-a/A 1 1051- 

a; OCA bill) extended mandatory arrest provisions and offenses related to protection-order violations to out-ofstate orders. State legislation enacted in the fall of 1999 addressed stalking by providing a definition based on 

behavior rather than intentions, and including emotional and financial harm, and stalking through a third party. 

The law also specified misdemeanor and felony levels and established penalties. Legislation on identifying 

primary aggressors to reduce dual arrests has also been implemented. 

By mid-1997, the first modification to the Court model, in response to the increasing caseload, was in effect. FDVC began channeling trials out to felony judges in other Supreme Court parts to expedite case 

processing and reduce backlog. In April 1998, a second FDVC part opened with full resources and staffing to 

help manage the growing caseload. This evaluation effort, a partnership of CCI and the Urban Institute, also 

began in April 1998. 

A number of new initiatives and partnerships have begun since 1999, several new programs have been 

added to the partnership, and one program is no longer a partner. CCI received a grant and filled the Court 

Coordinator for Children of Domestic Violence position to strengthen ties between this Court, the family 

courts, and the city’s child protection agency. The Court also forged a link with the State Department of 

Corrections and the State Division of Parole whereby orders of protection are included with prison remands, 

and parolees from the Court return for a post-release supervision appearance when their parole begins. The 

District Attorney’s Office consolidated all its advocacy services into the Counseling Services Unit, rather than 

having teams of advocates work within bureaus. However, the advocates who work with domestic violence 

cases still specialize in these cases. The DA’s Office also initiated the Central Brooklyn Task Force to 

strengthen relations with the police and reach out to identified underserved populations, and the Barrier-Free 

Justice Project to improve services to people with disabilities. Probation formed a Domestic Violence LJnit and 

implemented the Start program, an electronic surveillance system and use of victim ?!arms for enforcing 

conditions of probation. Finally, two new batterer intervention programs are now providing services to the 

Court, New York Forensics and Alternatives to Violence. NYCAAP is no longer receiving referrals from the 

Court because of problems in reporting and concerns about how services were provided. 

Additional provisions of the Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994 took efe 

Specialized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 27 

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.
e 

a 

jail 

FIGURE 3. Processing of Felony Domestic Violence Cases in Brooklyn Before 

the Court's Opening 

arrest 

not identified as 

lelonv DV 

identilied as felony DV by DA al 

pnsan jail probation 

1 I 

Criminal Court 

initial arraignment in Brooklyn 

Cnminal Courl ROR, or detained, 

temporary OP issued i I 

I 

DA in DV unit and advocates as 

available meet with victim 

present lo grand 

presentation to grand pry by DA in DV unit I and vote on indictment 

no true bill I true bill of indiclment 

charqes dismissed I 

or-reduced Io 

misdemeanor delendant is detained) 

AP1 (within a week of initial arraignmenl if 

a 

.................... post-indictmenl arraignment in 

guilty plea 

Supreme Court 

I pretrial motions. open lile I discovery, etc. 

charges guilty plea lriai 

I' + 

COnVlCtlOn acquillal 

28 Specialized Feiony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
FIGURE 4. Processing of Felony Domestic Violence Cases in Brooklyn Since 

the Court’s Opening 

arrest 

not identified as 

telony DV 

identified as lelony DV by DA at 

ROR, or detained, Cnminal Court ...................... 

DA in DV uniVadvocale learn 

meek with victim decision not lo 

t 

t 

presenlalion to grand jury by DA in DV unit 

and vole on indiclrnent 

true bill of indictmenl 

charges dismissed 

or reduced lo 

misdemeanor 

API (within a week of initial arraignment if - defendant is delained) 

Criminal Court 

Supreme Court 

I 

f 

.................... delained, OP issued. balterer intervention 

and substance abuse treatment may be 

post-indictment arraignment in 

leiony DV court 

guilty plea 

status appearance 

t 

pretnal motions open tile 

discovery. etc 

charges guilty plea 

dismissed 

convlctlon acquitlal 

1 

sentencing, final OP issued, batterer intervention and 

substance abuse lrealmenl may be ordered as a condilion of 

probation 

pnson probation 

1 I 

I ~~ 

status appearance every 2 

months dunnq probation 

status appearance when I released on parole 

Specialized feiony Domestic Violence Courts 29 

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.
ASELOAD CHANGES AND CASE PROCESSING TRENDS # - 

The establishment of the specialized Court has meant an increased demand for Court resources. These 

demands have stemmed from intrinsic elements of the model itself, from caseload growth due to prosecutorial 

reactions to the availability of FDVC, and from legislative and policy changes that have channeled more cases 

into the Court. Thus, there is not only more work to do on felony cases under this model, but also a broader 

range of cases to work on. 

Pre-disposition monitoring of all cases, and post-disposition monitoring of probation cases, requires a 

considerable amount of the Court’s resources. Defendants (and some offenders) appear regularly in Court for 

monitoring purposes, in addition to all the usual events which require the Court’s time, such as arraignment, 

motions, hearings, perhaps a trial, and so on. One judge noted that there are likely to be more pretrial evidentiary disputes in domestic violence cases, particularly when victims refuse to testify. 

have occurred in how the District Attorney’s Office approaches prosecution. Prosecutors are much more likely 

to indict a case now even if incarceration from a felony conviction does not seem likely, because the monitoring, batterer intervention services. and victim services available through FDVC are likely to enhance case 

outcomes for the victim. Domestic homicides, previously prosecuted by the Homicide Bureau of the District 

Attorney’s Office, are now prosecuted by the Domestic Violence Bureau, further elevating the caseload. The 

Court also facilitates application of the District Attorney’s pro-prosecution policy, since the judges will not 

dismiss a case solely on the victim’s lack of participation. 

In addition, legislation and policy changes have affected the Court’s caseload. While legislation effective 

in 1995 made protection-order violations chargeable as felonies under certain conditions (e.g., repeat violations 

and violations that cause injury), additional legislation effective in September 1996 provided an upgraded 

felony charge for protection-order violations involving injury and expanded the conditions under which other 

@ iolations were chargeable as felonies (e.g, the display of a deadly weapon, stalking, and harassment). This esulted in many cases, which would otherwise have gone to criminal court (where cases with only misdeResponding to the availability of a specialized court, senior district attorneys also report changes which 

meanor charges are adjudicated), being sent to the supreme court as felonies. Prosecutors have discretion over 

whether to bring an indictment in these cases, and typically indict cases in which the incident involved more 

serious behavior, there is a more extensive history of domestic violence, and the defendant has a more serious 

criminal history. Other cases tend to be prosecuted as misdemeanors. 

30 Speciairzed Feiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
FIGURE 5. Timeline of Key Events Since the Court’s Opening (extended to next page) 

to other judges due to 

overload on Judge 

Leventhal’s calenclar. 

,llb Cases are designated to a 

Apr ‘98: Center for Court 

Innovation and the Urban 

Coordinatoi 

1 of the 

:e 

the 

,^^ 

I 

begins sffe:1ng pL!hllc 

Juri ‘96: Hinoklyn 

De!eiiasr Services 

cicterise %?h8lces. I 

sapj:ler;ier.lii;g Leqnl ii.7 (Victim Services) Project 

Oct ‘96: Safe Horizon 

I‘ 

Apr ‘98: Judge Mdtttletv: 

D Eniic cperis d sPcoiid 

Domestic Vioienco par1 ‘wti 

staff Includin7 a Resouice 

Office’s Domestic Violence 

B iireaci 

there are some rt.st:icfions 

3n accep!ing violerit feions 

I Categories I 

blue -. police -- legislative 

red -_ District Attorney 

green --court 

IpotL~t -- offender services 

black .. research & development 

Specra/rzed Fe/ony Domestic Vdence Courts 3 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.
I FIGURE 5. continued 

4 

Jan '99: 

Counseling 

Services Unit 

iilithin District 

Attorneys Office 

created 

Summer '99: New York 

Forensics began 

blid '99: Bntterers' providing batterer 

ir\tempp!!r;n and intervention 

siti:stai1cc abuse 

tr?; ti?ieil t programs 

tifigan operating at 

Riwers Island 

I 

Mar& '00: Summer '99: 

Aiiernatives To Probation formed 

Domestic Violence Violence hqan 

providing batterer IJiiit and heqx Start 

program intervention 

Summer '99: Court 

Coordinator for Children of 

Domestic Violence position 

f!lk 

SurnmerlFall '00: FDVC began 

attaching orclers of protoctior- io 

prisoii remands 2nd prst,id;w;:? 

supervision nf parolees I 

2000 

Categories 

-- legislative 

oiirljlc, -- offender services 

black .- research & development 

blue -- police 

red -- District Attorney 

groen --court 

32 Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Caseload and Case Processing Statistics 

its caseload, how the caseload has changed over time, and several key indicators of case processing practices. 

Data are presented on a quarterly basis for the first four years of the Court's operation, beginning with the third 

quarter of 1996 (July to September) - when the Office of Court Administration began keeping statistics on the 

FDVC and domestic violence cases - which closely corresponds to the Court's opening date in June 1996, and 

going through the third quarter of 2000. All cases adjudicated in FDVC are included in these data. 

Data were obtained from the Office of Court Administration and analyzed to illustrate how FDVC acquired 

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate how the felony 

domestic violence 

caseload shifted from allpurpose court parts to 

FDVC. As shown in 

Figure 6, there were 

around 90 open domestic 

violence cases in other 

court parts prior to 

FDVC's opening. By 

the end of the third 

quarter of 1996, when 

the Court had been in 

operation for just over 

three months, the 

caseload had shifted 

from fewer than 20 open 

cases in other court parts 

to about 70 open cases in 

FDVC. Then the 

number of open domestic 

violence cases in other 

parts steadily declined, 

while FDVC's caseload 

steadily rose. This is to 

be expected, since 

FDVC began taking all 

new felonies from its 

opening date, so the 

other parts had to dispose 

only those cases they did 

not transfer. 

Figure 7 illustrates 

how FDVC's establishment channeled cases 

from a number of felony 

parts to only one. Just 

~~ 

6. Shift in Open Domestic Violence Cases from other 

Felony Court Parts to FDVC 

a, 5 180 

6 160 

140 

V 

- 

m 

5 120 a : 100 

-. a, 

v1 80 

0 60 

40 n 

8 

0 

5 

z 20 

0 

Open Cases in FDVC 

'e. Open Cases in Other Felony Parts 

--_ --_ .......................... %--- 

pre-FDVC 3d Quarter 4m Quarter Is' Quarter 2"d Quarler 

(611 4/96) 1996 1996 1997 1997 

FIGURE 7. Number of Felony Court Parts other than FDVC that 

Handled Domestic Violence Cases 

I 04 I 

pre-FDVC 3d Quarter 4b Quarter 1'' Quarter 2nd Quarter 

(611 4/96) 1996 1996 1997 1997 

before the Court opened, the open cases were scattered across about 20 different felony court parts. The 

number of courts handling these cases rapidly declined throughout 1996 and until the middle of 1997, when 

FDVC was virtually the only court adjudicating domestic violence felonies. 

Specialized feiany Domestic Vioience Courts 33 

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.
Figure 8 further illustrates trends in FDVC's caseload. These numbers represent all active cases during each 

.uarter from the Court's opening through the third quarter of 2000, including those which remained open at the end 

of the quarter and those which were disposed during the quarter. The Court handled about 100 cases during its first 

quarter, with the caseload rapidly rising until it reached a peak of well over 300 cases by the end of 1997. The 

number of active cases began to level off at that point, but was still close to 300 by the end of 1998. These figures 

include both Courts since the second quarter of 1998. when the second part opened. 

FIGURE 8. Changes in FDVC's Caseload 

350 1 

300 

0 > 

250 z 

D 

m 

P 200 

; 

2 150 

n 

- 

0 

W 

5 100 

z 

50 0 3rd j 4m 151 2" 3rd 4fi 1st 2' 3rO db 1st 2"d 3rO 4h is1 2" 3rO 

Qtr Qtr Cnr Qlr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Otr Qtr Qtr Qtr 

1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 PO00 2000 

e Figure 9 shows one of the reasons for the caseload increase in the first several years of the Court's operation 

(these data are only available through 1998). At the end of September 1996, cases with a felony-level protection-order 

violation charge as the top indictment charge were a very small percentage of the Court's open caseload (around 6%). 

After new legislation that expanded and enhanced felony charges for protection-order violations took effect in 

September 1996, these cases represented a rapidly rising percentage of the Court's caseload, leveling off between 25% 

and 30% by the end of 1997. Many of these cases would probably not have been in felony court without the felony 

protection-order violation charge. since such charges are class D and E felonies (the two lowest levels), and the figures 

presented here are on open cases in which the protection order charge is the top indictment charge. 

FIGURE 9. Percent of Open Domestic Violence Cases which Had Felony 

Order of Protection Violation as Top Indictment Charge 

30% 1 

0% ! I I # 

3d Quarter 4Ih Ouarter 1" Quarter 2"6 Quarter 3' Quarter 4" Quarter 1" Quarter 2' Quarter 3" Quarter 4m Quarter 

1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 

34 SpeCJdiZed felony Domestic t'ioience Courts 

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.
While the caseload peaked at around 300 cases between late 1997 and late 1998, the years since then have 

seen a drop in the specialized court parts’ caseload. From early 1999 through the third quarter of 2000, the 

caseload has fallen off to around 200 cases, or about 100 cases per judge. The District Attorney’s Office reports 

no changes in indictment policies or practices that would explain this decrease. Rather, it may be explained by 

changes in the numbers of arrests made by the police, as illustrated in Figure 10. Felony arrests were fairly 

constant from 1995 through 1998, but then dropped precipitously in 1999 (data are not yet available for 2000). 

Assuming felony arrests in domestic violence cases followed this general trend (data on domestic violence 

felonies only are not available), this would of course mean fewer cases for the District Attorney’s Office to indict 

and fewer cases for the Court to adjudicate. The decline in arrests may be explained by several hypotheses: 

0 Felony domestic violence crime in Kings County may have gone down, due to tougher approaches to 

these cases by the police. prosecutors, and/or the Court. Or other influential factors may be at work. If 

so, this would not be in keeping with national statistics on domestic violence rates, although crime 

rates in general have dropped. 

0 Reports of domestic violence incidents to the police may have declined. Opponents of mandatory arrest 

policies, such as those used by the New York Police Department, have argued that such policies may tend 

to decrease reporting, especially by victims who do not want or fear to have their abuser arrested. Simjlarly, prosecution and Court practices, such as evidence-based prosecution and close supervision of 

defendants, may have had, for various reasons, a chilling effect on reports of domestic violence. Or reporting rates could have dropped for other reasons external to changes in the justice system. 

0 While laws and police policies have certainly not changed in the direction of decreasing arrest rates, 

actual practices of line officers may have. Possible reasons for any such change are unknown. Arrests 

for misdemeanor domestic violence offenses have not dropped in recent years. 

All these hypotheses must remain speculative in the absence of data on incidence of domestic violence 

and calls for service. 

FIGURE 10. Trends in Felony Arrests in Kings County 

41,000 1 40 348 

40,000 

39,000 

38,000 

37,000 

36,000 

2 35,000 

a, 

L 

S 0 

- 

34,000 

33,000 

32,000 

3 1,000 

39 081 

I I 

39 923 

39.477 

34.411 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

- Source: DCJS. 

Specialized Felony Dornestfc Vlolence Cotirts 35 

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.
days 

As the caseload has changed. how has this affected the Court's ability to dispose of cases in a timely manThe Office of Court Administration has established a standard of disposing cases within 180 calendar 

of grand jury filing. As Figure 11 shows, the percentage of all cases still open at the end of each quarter 

that were more than 180 days old stayed steady at around 25% into early 1998 - about the same percentage as 

for other felony court parts. This is remarkable, given the rapid caseload increases seen over this time period 

and the intensity of services provided in these cases. The proportion of cases older than 180 days began to rise 

sharply by mid-1998, and has since varied between about 35% and 45%. Since the overall caseload has 

declined since early 1999, these data may indicate that cases are remaining open longer no& because the Court's 

dockets are overcrowded, but because the Court is keeping cases open longer to allow for the implementation 

of meaningful defendant monitoring and victim assistance activities. More recent cases may be more difficult 

to resolve quickly because homicides are now prosecuted by the DA's Domestic Violence Unit in the FDVC 

parts, and these cases require extensive preparation. 

I FIGURE 11. Percent of Open Domestic Violence Cases Older than 180 Days 

4 5 % 

40% 

z Y) 

0 m -

5 35% c 

30% 

25% 

w 

c 2 0 04 

15% 

0 

0 

0 

0" 

g 10% 

I 

c m 

[L 

I 

3d 4m 191 2m p 4" 2"1 3m p 191 2~j 3m 4" 151 2"1 3" 

Qtr Qlr Qtr Qtr Qtr Mr Qlr Qtr Mr Qtr Qtr Otr Qlr Qtr Mr Qtr Qtr 

1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 Zoo0 2000 2000 

Data are also available on how cases reached disposition, as shown in Figure 12. Throughout the time period, but especially in the first several years, trials have been a rare event, while guilty pleas are quite common 

at an average across this time period of about 7580% of all dispositions. An average of only about 510% of 

the cases were not pursued because they were dismissed (dropped altogether) or abated (which typically means 

the defendant died during case processing and is quite rare). This is extremely low for domestic violence 

cases. Another small fraction of the cases were still prosecuted but were superseded (the original indictment is 

dropped in favor of a newer indictment reflecting additional information or changes in circumstances) or 

consolidated (the original indictment is combined into another indictment arising from a separate incident and 

prosecuted under the other indictment number). 

36 Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
FIGURE 12. Trends in Types of Disposition 

Tnals 

0 Dismissed or Abated 

Guilty Pleas 

Superseded or Consolidated 

110% 1 c 

0 

(0 0 a 

'5 1 0 0 % 

g 9 0 Oh 

5 70% 

- 

0 

> 

Im 

W 

w 80% a 

0" 6 0 'lo 

50% (0 a, 

0 

U 

0 a 

w 4 0 % 

5 30% 

E 2 0 

a 10% 

0 Yo 

- 

0 

W 0 

a, 

L 

3d 4lh in 2"6 3" 41h 1s 2nd 3d 41h 1" 2"d 3nl 4th 1s 2rd 3nl 

Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. 

1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 

Figure 13 shows sentencing patterns over time for convictions from guilty pleas and trials. While the imposition of a particular type of sentcnce tends to vary a great deal from quarter to quarter, we see by combining 

the rates for prison, jail, and jaiVprobation split sentences (a period of incarceration in jail followed by a period 

of probation) that an average of about S0-85% of all convicted offenders have been sentenced to some sort of 

incarceration, and this has been relatively constant over time. Sentences involving probation - either straight 

probation or a jaiYprobation split sentence - have varied somewhat in frequency over time, and rates have 

fallen off a bit since late 1998 to early 1999. But taken together, probation and jaiVprobation split sentences 

average about 20% of all sentences to date. This is a significant percentage because these are cases that receive 

Court supervision through regular monitoring activities during the probationary period, adding to the Court's 

workload. 

Speoa/ired Felony Domestic Violence Courts 37 

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.
FIGURE 13. Trends in Sentencing on Guilty Pleas and Convictions 

Olher' 

0 Probation only 

Jail followed by probalion" 

' ' O Yo 1 

$ 1 0 0 Q/o 

6 90% 

9 80% 

r m 

.c 0 

m 2 7 0 Yo 

U 

0 

B 60% 

; E 5 0 O/O 

a, 0 

c 6 40% c W 

0 

C 

2 3 0 OIO 

8 20% 

& 

a 1 0 % 

c 

0 '/Q 

Jail only" 

/J Pnson"' 

3" 41h 1s' 2nd 3rd 4m 1s' 2nd 3d 4lh is! 2nd 3" 4th 1s' 2nd 3" 

Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. Qtr. 

1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 

'Other includes jail only, psychiatric treatment, conditional discharge, fine, time served, and warrant ordered. 

"Jail = up to 12 months of incarceration. 

"'Prison = 12 or more months of incarceration. 

THE COURT'S RESPONSE TO CASELOAD CHANGES 

Responding to pressures from the increased caseload in the first several years, the model was modified by 

getting additional judges involved in these cases to help manage the workload. One method involved sending 

cases out to judges in other felony parts for trial. Trials take a considerable amount of Court time, so, as the 

caseload increased, it became more difficult for the judges to set a trial date for aging cases that had not 

reached a plea agreement. Cases were sent to trial in two ways. They were either funneled through ajudge 

who either disposed the case through a plea agreement or else assigned cases which did not plead out to a trial 

part (a fair number of defendants pled guilty here under the threat of immediate trial), or cases were sent 

directly to a trial part. Five judges were recruited to help try cases that were not reaching a negotiated plea but 

were approaching the court system's time limit for speedy processing of 180 days. 

A total of 79 cases were disposed by trial in FDVC's first 17 quarters, which is only 7% of the total of 

1210 cases disposed in that time period. About two-thirds of these (54) were tried by FDVC judges, and the 

other one-third (25) by other felony part judges. Although the back-up judges tried 25 cases, this represents 

only about one-third of the 78 cases which were sent to them for trial. The other 53 cases were disposed by 

some other method before going to trial, typically a guilty plea or sometimes a dismissal. When cases did go to 

trial. they resulted in a conviction 84% of the time (66 of the 79 trials), with acquittals only 14% (1 3 trials) of 

the time, whether the judge was a FDVC judge or not. These figures show that the use of auxiliary judges for 

trials actually represents a rather minor modification to the principle of vertical adjudication, since very few 

cases are sent out for trial; cases sent out for trial are relatively unlikely to actually go to tria!, cases which are 

tried are more likely to be tried by a FDVC judge than by an auxiliary judge; and convictions are by far the 

more likely outcome regardless of who tries the case. 

38 Specialized feiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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 response to the heavy caseload was the opening of a second FDVC part in April 1998. During 

the fall of 1997, the original judge’s caseload grew to over 300 cases, even though he disposed of an unusually 

large number of cases during that quarter. It was apparent that one judge could not handle the entire caseload 

alone anymore, so plans to open a second FDVC part were underway. 

The second part was opened in April 1998 with a full complement of court resources, including the additional judge, his legal and administrative staff, court officers, and a resource coordinator. This part is also run 

entirely on Office of Court Administration resources, rather than external funding. Like the original judge, the 

newer judge was also selected for his dedication, professionalism, intellectual interests, willingness to learn 

about new areas, openness to implementing a new approach, and efficiency, rather than for a background in 

domestic violence cases. He received training in these cases by attending court-sponsored training sessions, 

taking the original judge’s cases during his absences prior to the opening of the second part, and confemng 

with the original judge on cases as needed. 

a number of the original judge’s cases, primarily those not requiring intensive monitoring because the defendant is detained, and those ready for trial. After the two judges’ caseloads were about equal the vertical 

adjudication model was re-implemented, with each judge handling his own cases from felony arraignment to 

post-disposition monitoring. The only exception is when a case is ready for trial and the judge is unavailable, 

in which case it is sent for trial by the other domestic violence judge or by one of the auxiliary judges in 

another felony part. 

seen a drop in the specialized court parts’ caseload. This smaller caseload has resulted in fewer cases being 

sent out for trial (the judges have tried almost all their own cases since early 1999), a less frenetic pace for 

Court proceedings, and the opportunity to implement the model more faithfully by holding Court monitoring 

appearances according to the scheduled bi-monthly for released defendants and semi-monthly for detained 

defendants and probationers. 

When the second judge first assumed the bench, he took all new felony arraignments and was transferred 

While the caseload peaked at about 300 cases between late 1997 and late 1998, the years since then have 

EXPANSIONS OF THE COURT MODEL AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE 

Several new partner agencies have been brought into the network since the court opened. The Federation 

of Employment and Guidance Services (FEGS), a large private non-profit social service organization, runs a 

program in conjunction with the Health and Hospital Corporztion, a city agency, and state social workers, 

called New York City-Link. The goal of the Link program is to provide short-term case management to 

severely and persistently mentally ill jail and prison inmates being released and returning to live in New York 

City. The Link program helps arrange housing, provides temporary funds to ensure clients have continuous 

access to needed psychiatric medications, conducts peer support groups, and makes referrals to other community services. Though Link is one of the few programs which accepts both mentally ill and substance abusing 

clients, they do not accept clients convicted of A, B, or C (the most severe) felonies or weapons-related 

charges; they will only accept D and E felons. The Link program’s pilot period began in 1996, and it became 

more widely available to felony domestic violence offenders in early 1998. 

Other service programs have also come into the network, and one is no longer an active partner. A new 

batterers’ intervention provider, New York Forensics, began accepting defendants on a pilot basis in mid-1 999. 

Batterers’ intervention and substance abuse treatment programs also began operation at Rikers Island, the New 

York City jail, around the same time period. This allows detained defendants (pre-disposition) and convicted 

offenders sentenced to jail time to participate in needed services. Another new batterers’ program, Alternatives 

to Violence, began providing services in FDVC cases in March 2000. Shortly afterwards, the Court stopped 

referring cases to NYCAAP because of problems in receiving reports and concerns about how services were 

provided. 

The Court has been very responsive to batter intervention providers’ need to collect payment from courtordered clients, since this may be their only source of revenue, and began ordering payment as a condition of 

probation. Providers report payment status to the Court so the Court can impose sanctions on those who fail to 

pay; this has been very helpful in maintaining program stability. 

Speoalized felony Domestic Violence Courts 39 

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 Probation Department has responded to the needs of the Court and these cases by opening a specialed Domestic Violence Unit. This unit provides intensive supervision, similar to the Intensive Supervised 

@robat ion approach, including the use of electronic surveillance and a voice-recognition telephone system 

where appropriate. 

also have cases in the Family Court that involve custody and visitation issues, child neglect charges, or 

concurrent family offense cases. Moreover, violations of family court orders of protection can be charged 

criminally and so may be pending in FDVC. Since early 1999 FDVC has been sending copies of all indictments to family court for return notification of whether there is also a case pending in that court, and has 

notified the family court of all indictments charging violations of family court protection orders to improve that 

court’s knowledge of significant events in cases pending before it. FDVC also requests information on the 

terms of custody or visitation orders issued by the Family Court for defendants with cases pending in both 

courts. The Court Coordinator for Children of Domestic Violence facilitates the flow of information between 

this Court and the family court on cases involved in both courts with access to the family court’s MIS; helps 

victim advocates obtain services for children; and works on efforts to strengthen links with the Administration 

for Children‘s Services, which provides protective services to children at risk. 

Progress has also been made in establishing links with state correctional authorities to enhance victim 

safety. The State Department of Corrections now allows a final protection order, extending three years beyond 

the maximum range of the sentence imposed, to be attached to the order of commitment for prison-bound 

offenders. Corrections authorities can enforce these orders to prohibit unwanted contact with the victim by the 

incarcerated offender. Victims who wish to visit incarcerated offenders can work with advocates to have the 

FDVC judge change full orders to limited orders (allowing contact), where necessary. The Court regularly 

sends letters to the state parole authority’s domestic violence unit informing them of the existence of a protection order, so that they could take this into account when deciding whether to grant parole and under what 

onditions. The Court has recently begun post-release supervision of parolees by requiring a monitoring 

ppearance in the Court upon release. 

An important link is being forged with the Brooklyn Family Court. Many FDVC victims and defendants 

Recently awarded grant support for CCI to fund a case management unit will assist with efforts to 

The Technology Application also assists in improving communication links among the core partners, 

a 

strengthen defendant assessment. referrals, and placement in needed service programs. 

streamlining the process of issuing an order of protection, and improving access to the state’s Domestic 

Violence Registry. 

40 Specializeo Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Policy and Implementation Challenges 

The Court model has been in operation for over four years, and has not only survived by meeting and addressing obstacles as they have arisen, but has thrived by expanding into additional program areas and 

incorporating new agencies into the partnership network while gathering much acclaim at local, state, and 

national levels. This is clearly a very strong and innovative approach to felony domestic violence cases. There 

are, however, still a number of issues which remain troubling to at least some of the actors in the system. Some 

of these are policy issues, some center around resources or procedures or other implementation issues, some 

affect primarily one or a few of the partner agencies, and some raise questions on a system-wide basis. These 

issues, steps which have been taken to address them, and other potential solutions are presented here for 

consideration by the Court and partner agencies. 

DEMANDS ON THE COURT’S RESOURCES 

This approach to adjudication is very resource-intensive, given the intense services cases receive (e.g., 

pre- and post-disposition monitoring), the additional staff the Court employs to apply the model (Le., the 

resource coordinators), and the extra-judicial responsibilities the judges are called on to fulfill (e.g., hosting 

regular partner meetings). Thus, adjudicating these cases is very expensive and time consuming, in terms of 

both staff time and the real time it takes to reach case disposition. One of the chief challenges facing FIIVC is 

the conflict between the need to comply with the Office of Court Administration’s goal of reaching a case 

disposition within 180 days, to ensure speedy processing, and the need to take the necessary time to ensure 

these cases receive the attention and services their complexities demand. It is crucial that Court personnel 

carefully consider where to strike a balance between efficiency and caseload management concerns on the one 

hand, and on the other, the importance of preserving the integrity of the Court model, including fostering the 

network of partner agencies through meetings, facilitating communications among partners on a case-by-case 

basis (such as the use of regular calendar days to permit more efficient participation by partner agencies), and 

providing the intensive defendant supervision (pre- and post-disposition monitoring) and victim services that 

are critical components of this approach. 

e 

THE NEED TO SUSTAIN THE DIRECTOR ROLE 

The Director has been instrumental in developing, implementing, and evolving the Court model since the 

Court’s inception. She has played a critical role in training personnel, facilitating networking activities, 

identifying and resolving problem areas, expanding the model and bringing in new partners, and publicizing 

the Court’s approach. However, as her responsibilities have broadened, she is no longer able to serve as 

Director in a full-time capacity. Future replications of this model would be well-served by having a full-time 

on-site Director not only in the early implementation stages but over time as well. Her close working relationship with the original judge in the early days of the Court’s operation was an invaluable training experience in 

both domestic violence issues and implementing the Court model; this function is needed again as the model 

expands or staff rotate to other positions. It is also critical to make sure that the Director has adequate time 

available to work on the very important tasks of enhancing the partnership networks (through meetings and 

individual agency contacts) and identifying and troubleshooting problem areas while they are still emerging. 

While the Director’s role in publicizing the Court and hosting visitors is a very important one, it takes up a 

great deal of the time she has to devote to this project. leaving less time for ongoing oversight of the model’s e implementation and expansion efforts. 

Speoaiized Felony Domestic Violence Cciurts 4 1 

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.
POLICY AND RESOURCE ISSUES FACING THE 

(PISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND SAFE HORIZON 

While the District Attorney‘s Office implements many progressive policies and structures (including a 

specialized domestic violence bureau, a Counseling Services Unit, an expanded definition of domestic violence, a pro-prosecution policy, and vertical prosecution from the point of post-indictment arraignment), some 

operational problems remain. These obstacles center around policies, resource limitations, and gaps in linkage 

mechanisms. 

The first problem arises before a case is adjourned to FDVC and assigned to felony prosecutors and advocates. State law requires an indictment to be filed within roughly five days of the arrest for detained 

defendants, or else the defendant muSt be released. Because of the Court’s high caseload, it is a constant 

challenge to meet this requirement, and detained defendants are always the priority cases. For released 

defendants, weeks may pass before their cases are presented to the grand jury. Newer and more serious cases 

may have come along in the meantime and taken priority for a speedy indictment, to avoid having to release 

these defendants. 

four or five days and several weeks can pass between the crime and the first contact with a service provider, 

depending on whether the defendant was detained. A long time lag is damaging both prosecutonally, in that 

victims may lose the resolve to participate with prosecution, and therapeutically, since a valuable window of 

opportunity for obtaining services urgently needed in the immediate crisis period after the felony has been lost. 

Efforts have been made to fill this gap, including a “riding” system, in which felony prosecutors and advocates 

are beeped and requested to respond immediately to some cases; they meet the victim at the precinct, hospital, 

or wherever she is. 

Another problem with using grand jury presentation as the advocates’ client intake mechanism occurs 

when victims do not come into the District Attorney’s Office to prepare for the grand jury. They may, for 

mxample, be hospitalized and unable to come in,’or they may have decided not to participate with prosecution, 

or their case may have been transferred to the Domestic Violence Bureau after indictment. Advocates make 

efforts to do outreach in these cases, but many of these victims may still never receive services, or receive 

delayed services. Recent efforts have been made to address this problem by developing additional intake 

mechanisms. 

While it is certainly desirable and an integral part of the FDVC model that all victims receive the services 

of an advocate, even current caseloads place serious strains on existing resources. This is particularly true for 

the advocates employed by the DA’s Office. Each of these advocates carries a caseload of about 40 to 60 

felony cases, plus hundreds of misdemeanor cases. Safe Horizon advocates typically cany 20 to 50 felony 

cases. With these caseloads, regular outreach to all victims prior to each court appearance as called for under 

the Court model becomes impossible, which means that the Court may not be receiving current information on 

the victim’s status at each monitoring appearance. The advocates have responded to their caseload demands by 

prioritizing those victims most at risk - those with non-detained batterers - for frequent and regular contact, 

but it would be best to have the resources to maintain regular contact with all victims. 

grating these positions into the District Attorney’s Office and establishing a teamwork approach with 

prosecutors. Special efforts have been needed to enhance information sharing on cases between prosecutors 

and advocates. For example, each day an advocate visits the attorneys’ offices to get information on new 

cases. 

which the advocates refer clients. Shelter space is extremely limited, waiting lists for permanent housing can 

be months long. and changes in legislation, regulations, or funding for public assistance and immigration can 

be punitive to victims in need of help. 

Since the advocates typically first meet and intake victims at the point of grand jury presentation, between 

Efforts of the advocates on behalf of their clients have also been limited by the initial difficulties in inteAnother factor limiting services to victims is the scarcity of service availability in community agencies to 

42 Specialized Felony Domestic Vmience Courts 

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.
GAPS IN DEFENDANT SERVICES 

There is a dire shortage of community resources to treat defendants with both substance abuse and mental 

health treatment needs. Most programs address only one or the other issue. and many of these have restrictions on accepting clients with a history of violence, particularly when violent felony-level charges are 

involved. For example, FEGS-Link, the primary agency providing mental health services to the FDVC, only 

serves those convicted of lower-level felonies (D and E felonies). Other agencies have similar policies. These 

restrictions represent serious challenges to the placement of mentally ill defendants who commit more serious 

offenses, yet for whom incarceration would not be an appropriate sentence. In addition, programs which 

accept FDVC’s defendants sometimes have intake procedures which clash with Court security requirements,‘ 

making assessment and program placement very difficult. All these problems combine to present a significant 

challenge to the Court and partner agencies trying to blend criminal justice and treatment services to address 

the wide range of problems these cases present. 

There is also some confusion over who is responsible for finding program placements for Court-ordered 

defendants. Some see it as the responsibility of the defense attorneys, and at least one of the contracted public 

defense providers, Brooklyn Defenders Service, has access to program referral services. Others see it as the 

responsibility of FDVC resource coordinators; they do make referrals and provide information on options but 

are less likely to facilitate actual program placements. A recently-awarded grant to CCI to fund a defendant 

case management unit at the Court should help address at least some of these problems. 

and educational assistance as well as batterer intervention, substance abuse, and mental health treatment. It 

would be very helpful to forge links with community agencies offering vocational and educational services, 

just as connections have been established with other services. 

The frequent Court appearances required of non-detained defendants in the pre-disposition period, while 

very important for monitoring purposes and encouraging defendants to comply with court orders, make it 

difficult for some defendants to keep jobs during this period. Even though many defendants end up serving a 

period of incarceration once convicted, it would be helpful if they could retain employment in the predisposition period, especially since at least some of their program obligations (such as batterer intervention 

services) require them to pay fees. One alternative is to schedule their appearances so they could appear in 

Court when they’re not scheduled to work. 

e 

Other obstacles were mentioned by those who work with defendants. Many defendants need vocational 

CONCERNS FROM THE DEFENSE BAR 

Some members of the defense bar have raised questions about several fundamental goals and practices of 

the FDVC model, as well as the policy and legal context within which the model operates. Some members of 

the defense bar see the model as inherently biased toward prosecution, too dependent on the DA’s Office’s 

policies for identifying domestic violence cases, and too closely aligned with victim advocates to retain 

impartiality. For example, defense attorneys have complained of lack of access to the Domestic Violence 

Registry to substantiate past abuse by the victim or victimization of the defendant. While the prosecutor does 

not have access to the Registry either (only the Court has access), the Registry is routinely checked for orders 

involving the defendant as the protected or the enjoined party. 

siastically support having a specialized docket for processing all these cases together, others maintain that this 

kind of specialization produces a sort of tunnel vision, in that the Court and other agencies lose perspective on 

where these cases fit into the broader range of felonies and exaggerate their seriousness. This is a particular 

concern with protection-order violation cases, which are charged as felonies under state law but involve 

While most of the criminal justice and social service personnel involved in domestic violence cases enthuMany programs do not send representatives to Court or to Rikers Island, where detained defendants are held. Detective 

investigators are available to transport defendants to the program site, but they cannot leave the defendant alone with the 

intake person since he/she is in custody, and the intake person cannot ask confidential questions in front of the detective 

investigators. These conflicting policies can significantly hinder program placement. 

6 

Specialued Felony Dornestlc Violence CoJrts 43 

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.
underlying behavior which would not otherwise constitute a felony. In fact, the law permitting felony charges 

r protection-order violations is itself seen by some as imbalanced and unfair. 

Another fundamental goal of the Court model is to try to deter future offenses. Defense attorneys have 

questioned the constitutionality of this goal, maintaining that the court system should only punish for the 

current offenses of which he or she is convicted, and not preemptively punish for what he or she might do. 

They are also concerned about practices that seem to assume guilt and impose penalties before a conviction is 

reached, and see these practices as an infringement on defendants’ rights. The use of batterer intervention and 

other program requirements during the pre-disposition period is cited as an example of a practice that assumes 

the defendant is guilty of battering. and is punitive because defendants have to pay for these services. This is 

particularly problematic for defendants who are ultimately exonerated of the charges or if their case is ultimately dismissed. Some in the court 8ystem reply that program requirements are rehabilitative rather than 

punitive, while being held in jail, clearly an appropriate pre-disposition practice, is punitive. One of the FDVC 

judges has recently ruled that there are legal grounds for this practice. and the defense bar has not challenged 

this ruling. 

Defense attorneys also object to laws and policies that constrain the exercise of discretion, specifically 

police mandatory arrest policies and the District Attorney’s evidence-based prosecution policy of proceeding 

even without the victim’s participation. Their concern is that these practices represent an exercise of power 

and control over the victim, and they cite cases in which victims have come to them for help in getting charges 

dropped. Prosecuting attorneys acknowledge that victims are often angry when their wishes to have cases 

dismissed are not followed, but they also cite examples in which victims are coerced into expressing that they 

want to drop the charges, or have later come back to them expressing appreciation that the case was prosecuted 

anyway, and saying they were able to use the time away from the batterer to leave or obtain services they 

needed. 

equested input into which cases are identified as domestic violence and routed to FDVC. Objecting to the 

tate’s routine request for full orders of protectick (forbidding contact with the victim). defense attorneys 

maintain that. in some cases, limited orders (allowing contact) are more appropriate and desirable. There have 

been efforts by the Office of Court Administration to explore the use of limited orders where appropriate. 

Defense also feels that certain exceptions which have been made to evidence exclusion rules are unfair, such as 

the Molineaux exception allowing prior “bad acts” to be admitted as evidence, the use of 91 1 tapes which does 

not allow for cross-examination, and the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule. 

effective venue for voicing defense concerns; rather, they feel that these meetings are “pep rallies” for those 

who support the model and may be antagonistic to the defense viewpoint. Defense attorneys have attended 

trainings which they perceived as very victim-oriented, ignoring the defendant’s perspective. 

Other prosecutorial practices also cause concern among defense attorneys. Some defense attorneys have 

a 

While defense attorneys have been invited to network meetings they do not feel that these forums are an 

44 Speoalized feiony DomesOc Violence Courts 

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 Impact of the FDVC Model on 0 Case Processing and Outcomes in Early Cases (1997) 

The outcome evaluation used a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Qualitative 

methods included interviews with practitioners, observations of courtroom operations, and attendance at 

network meetings. This information is very useful for generating hypotheses and informing statistical analyses 

and interpretations of results. The quantitative evaluation involved selecting samples of FDVC and comparison cases and obtaining detailed information on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. Data on these 

cases were collected through in-depth reviews of Court and District Attorney’s Office files. Data on criminal 

history and recidivism for these cases and additional 1997 cases were also obtained from the state’s Division of 

Criminal Justice Services. Statistical analyses were conducted to address a number of questions around what 

impact FDVC has had on how cases are handled, on how the partner agencies function at a systemic level, and 

what outcomes are achieved for victims and batterers. 

THE SAMPLES 

Three samples of cases were selected for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. These samples were:’ 

0 “Pre” cases: A total of 93 felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 (before the 

FDVC was established) and adjudicated by various Supreme Court parts were studied. These cases 

provide a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of 

these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law in September, 1996. 

“FDVC” cases: A sample of 109 cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, 

after the model was fully implemented) and similar on indictment charges to the “pre” cases was selected. These were cases which had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal 

contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these are cases which would have 

been indicted and adjudicated in the Supreme Court even without application of the September, 1996 

law. This selection criterion was used so that the “pre” cases would provide a similar comparison 

group. 

0 

“CC-only ” cases: Because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared 

with those handled in Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by 

the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This is a small sample (27 cases) in 

which felony protection-order violations were the only indicted felony charge; these cases would not 

have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allows us to assess how the protection order 

violation cases are different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they may be handled 

differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases are designated “CC-only” because their only 

felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations 

are charged. 

’ Please see Appendix C for detailed information on how the entire population of cases was identified and the samples 

selected. and for analyses of possible sample selection biases. 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 45 

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.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN BROOKLYN 

0 Data were obtained to describe the people involved in domestic violence cases, their relationships and 

histories, the incidents that led to the felony cases included in our samples, police and prosecutors' responses to 

these incidents, and changes in any of these factors over time. 

Most felony domestic violence cases in Brooklyn involve young, minority, lowersocioeconomic status men as defendants and women as victims. Changes in state 

law and the District Attorney's indictment practices since the FDVC began seem 

to have broadened the range of cases adjudicated as felonies in the Supreme 

Court, at least in its early period. Many of the cases processed by the FDVC 

involved very serious offenses between people with involved relationships and 

histories of abuse, and defendants with substantial criminal histories. However, 

many cases charged at lower levels of severity also entered the felony court. This 

is likely due both to the law felonizing protection order violations, and to more 

aggressive indictment practices in the DA's Office. Even putting aside the criminal 

contempt-only sample, the DA's Office seemed more likely to indict cases with 

less severe police charges since the FDVC began, as witnessed by prosecutors' 

reports and data comparing charge severity levels and upgrading from arrest to 

indictment across the samples. 

Characteristics of Defendants, Victims, Relationships, and Histories 

pre-FDVC, FDVC, and criminal contempt-only (CC-only) cases. These data provide a profile of the felony 

omestic violence cases in Brooklyn near the pojnt of arrest, and they indicate whether these characteristics a ave changed since FDVC implementation. It should be noted that indirect sources, such as police, District 

Attorney, and other justice system agencies' records, were used for these data, and such records may be prone 

to missing or inaccurate data in some cases. 

Table 1 presents demographic, socioeconomic, relationship, and abuse history data for all three samples: 

rABLE 1. Characteristics of Defendants, Victims, Relationships, and Abuse Histories 

Pre-Sample FDVC Sample CC-only Sample 

(N = 93) (N = 109) (N = 27) 

A) Defendant Characteristicsa 

1. Demographics 

Male sex 

Age (mean) 

Race I ethnicity 

Hispanic I Latino 

Black / African-American 

Caucasian or otherb 

Translator needed' 

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics 

High school graduate 

Employed part-time or full-time 

Annual income if employed (mean) 

Residential status 

Currently homeless 

N.Y.C. Housing Authority project 

96% 

34 

18% 

67% 

15% 

12% 

58% 

57% 

$13,625 

2 Yo 

6 O/o 

96% 

34 

21% 

67% 

12% 

10% 

56% 

52% 

$12,665 

2 Yo 

18% 

93% 

32 

26% 

59% 

15% 

1 1 Yo 

62% 

$1 3.065 

46% 

7 yo 

7 % 

46 Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
-able 1. continued. 

Pre -Sample FDVC Sample CC-only Sample 

(N = 93) (N = 709) (N = 27) 

B) Victim Characteristicsd 

7. Demographics 

Female sex 

Age (mean) 

Race I ethnicity 

Hispanic I Latina 

Black / African-American 

Caucasian or othere 

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Employed part-time or full-time 

Residential status 

Currently homeless 

N.Y.C. Housing Authority project 

C) Relationship and Abuse History' 

7. Relationship Status 

Victim lived with the defendant at incident 

Married or intimate partner (versus 

blood relative) 

Children in common 

Months victim knew defendant (mean) 

93% 

31 

18% 

67% 

18% 

43% 

1 Yo 

6 O/o + 

53%' 

90% 

56% 

86 

95% 

31 

22% 

64% 

14% 

38% 

0% 

24% 

41% 

96% 

5 4 O/o 

87 

93% 

30 

26% 

22% 

52% 

50% 

0% 

15% 

33% 

89% 

5 9 '/o 

69 

2. Prior Abuse by Defendant Against Same Victim 

Any prior abuse 87% 

Months of prior abuse (if prior abuse) 74*** 

Prior physical assault 73% 

Prior use of weapon 54%* 

Prior sexual abuse 16%' 

Medical attention previously needed 40% 

Prior order of protection 52% 

90% 

31 

72% 

35% 

7 yo 

33% 

61 Yo 

96% 

35 

74% 

29% 

4 yo 

39% 

93%" 

- 

+ p < .10 ' p < .05 ** p c.01 *** p < .001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

Sources: (A) Defendant characteristics: defendant interview by the N.Y.C. Criminal Justice Agency (CJA). 

(6) Victim Characteristics: victim interviews conducted by the police and the DA's office. 

(C) Relationship and Abuse History: both of the above two sources. In cases of a discrepancy 

between defendant and victim responses, the onsite Research Associate evaluated each 

source and made an educated guess as to which was correct, generally using information 

from the victim interview if in doubt. 

' Total n = 193-229 depending on the number of missing cases. Exception: For annual income of those employed, n = 82 (out of 

I18 employed defendants). 

' Of 31 defendants in the Caucasian or other category (in both samples), 27 were Caucasian and 4 were Indian. 

;reole. 

' Total n = 203-229 depending on the number of missing cases. 

' Of 35 victims in the Caucasian or other category (in both samples), 32 were Caucasian and 3 were Indian. 

Total n = 189-229 depending on the number of missing cases. Exception: N = 158 for months of prior abuse (out of 198 victims 

ndicating any prior abuse by the defendant). 

Of 25 defendants needing a translator (in both samples), 17 needed Spanish, 5 needed Russian, 2 needed Polish, and 1 needed 

Speclaiized Felony Domestrc Vioience Courts 47 

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.
Defendant Characteristics. Most defendants in all three samples were young Black or Hispanic men. 

lightly over half were high school graduates, and about the same proportion were employed. Those who G orked made about $13,000 per year. Nearly one-fifth of the FDVC sample lived in public housing, more 

than the 6% to 7% of the pre and CC-only samples. This was the only statistically significant difference 

among the three samples. 

predominant pattern of male-on-female violence. Under half were employed, and between 6% and 24% lived 

in public housing. The marginally significant difference on this factor, in which fewer pre sample victims than 

FDVC victims lived in public housing, was the only significant difference among the three samples. 

Victim/Defendant Relationships. Victims and defendants in the three samples had more than casual relationships. They were nearly always married or intimate partners, and had known each other five years or more 

on average. Over half had children in common, and from one-third to one-half lived together, with pre cases 

slightly more likely to co-habitate. 

ships, with the pre sample’s history often the most severe. Nearly all the victims had experienced abuse prior 

to this incident. about three-fourths had prior physical assaults. and over one-third had needed medical attention. In addition, the pre sample had experienced abuse over a longer period of time (over five years on 

average vs. under three years); were more likely to have experienced the use of a weapon (over half the pre 

cases vs. one-third the FDVC and CC-only cases), and were more likely to have suffered sexual abuse (16% 

vs. 4% to 7%). Virtually all the CC-only sample had a prior order of protection (OP), but over half the pre and 

FDVC samples had OP’s as well. It is not surprising that the CC-only sample had the highest rate of OP’s, 

since violation of a prior OP is a definitional requirement for sample inclusion. The other 7% of the CC-only 

sample had some other type of court order prohibiting contact with the victim by the defendant. 

Victim Characteristics. The majority of the victims were young Black or Hispanic women, indicating a 

Victim/Defendant Abuse Histories. All three samples had significant histories of abuse in the relationDefendants’ Criminal Histories. Table 2 presents data on defendants’ criminal histories. For all three 

amples, indicted domestic violence defendants have extensive criminal histories. One-third or more had prior 

elony convictions, upwards of one-fourth had phor violent felony convictions, and half or more had prior 

misdemeanor convictions. 

ples. But there were many differences between the FDVC and CC-only samples, with the CC-only sample 

generally revealing a more extensive history. Compared with the FDVC sample, the CC-only sample had 

higher rates of prior domestic violence arrests, previous OP’s, prior criminal convictions, and prior criminal 

contempt convictions. They also had marginally higher rates of felony and drug convictions. This result 

surfaced partly by definition, since criminal behavior can usually be expected to precede the issuance of an OP 

in the first place and these cases were more likely to have prior OP’s. These differences may also be due to a 

practice by which prosecutors report they are more likely to indict criminal contempt cases in the first place if 

the defendant has a prior criminal history. By contrast, criminal contempt defendants lacking a serious 

criminal history will often have their cases resolved in criminal court, as misdemeanors, even if the cases began 

as felony arrests. 

There were no significant differences in the criminal histories of defendants from the pre and FDVC sam48 Speciaiired Feiony Domestlc Violence Courts 

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.
'ABLE 2. PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THE DEFENDANT 

Pre 

Sample 

(N = 93) 

1. Prior Domestic Violence 

Prior domestic violence arresta 

Any victim 

Same victim as in the current case 

Other victim than in the current case 

Previous order of protection (any victim) 

2. Prior Criminal Convictions 

Any criminal conviction 

Of those with at least one conviction: 

One (1) 

Two (2) to Three (3) 

Four (4) or more 

Mean criminal convictions 

3. Prior Felony Convictions 

Any felony conviction 

Of those with at least one conviction: 

One (1) 

Two (2) to Three (3) 

Four (4) or more 

Mean felony convictions 

4. Prior Misdemeanor Convictions 

Any misdemeanor conviction 

Of those with at least one conviction: 

One (1) 

Two (2) to Three (3) 

Four (4) or more 

Mean misdemeanor convictions 

5. Prior Violent Felony Offense Convictions 

Any violent felony offense conviction 

Mean violent felony convictions (if 2 1) 

6. Prior Criminal Contempt Convictions 

Any criminal contempt conviction 

Mean crim. contempt convictions (if 2 1) 

7. Prior Drug Convictions 

Any drug conviction 

Mean drug convictions (if 2 1) 

45% 

44% 

11% 

66% 

56% 

23% 

3 0 O/o 

47% 

5.12 

33% 

58% 

36% 

6% 

1.65 

52% 

35% 

25% 

40% 

4.48 

22% 

1.20 

26% 

2.21 

20% 

2.37 

FD VC CC-only 

Sample Sample 

(N = 109) (N = 27) 

48% 78%" 

45% 77%" 

6 Yo 5% 

72% 96%"' 

66% 85%' 

29% 

28% 

3.82 

43% 

13% 

48% 

39% 

4.00 

41% 59% + 

62% 

34% 

4 yo 

1.58 

38% 

62% 

0% 

1.81 

57 % 67% 

30% 

32% 

38% 

3.64 

25% 

1.33 

30% 

1.67 

28% 

44% 

28% 

3.50 

37% 

1.40 

56%' 

2.13 

28 % 48% + 

1.65 1.31 

+ p -= .10 * p -= .05 ** p c.01 *** p c ,001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

Source: Unless otherwise noted (footnote a), the source is offlcial New York State rap sheets, provided by the New York 

State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). 

Note: N = 229, except where otherwise noted (see footnote a). 

a The sources for information regarding prior domestic violence arrests are victim interviews by the DA's Office and the state's 

Order of Protection Registry. 

Specmlized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 49 

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 Criminal Incident and System Responses 0 Table 3 provides information on the felony offense and police and prosecutors’ actions. These data indicate that the pre and FDVC samples consisted of cases with serious criminal offenses which were treated 

seriously by the authorities. especially since the specialized court was established. The DA was more likely to 

upgrade charges from arrest to indictment for the FDVC and CC-only cases, in keeping with prosecutors’ 

reports that having the specialized court influenced prosecutors to try to channel cases there whenever possible. 

tact and related physical injuries. and the use of a weapon. Despite the apparent seriousness of these incidents, 

40% or more of these victims expressed a desire to have the criminal charges dropped after the felony indictment. Unfortunately, data were not available concerning subsequent victim involvement with the case and 

whether the victim’s position on dropping charges remained unchanged. 

As expected, CC-only cases, which can be triggered by any form of defendanthictim contact, showed a 

lower prevalence of physical contact, injuries, and use of a weapon. However, these victims were somewhat 

less likely to want charges dropped, perhaps because more of them had already obtained OP’s, showing a 

commitment to using justice system interventions to stop the violence. Unexpected and somewhat inexplicable 

was that medical attention was reportedly more often sought in cases from the CC-only sample (cases with 

protection-order violations only, no assault charges), although many pre and FDVC victims sought medical 

attention as well. 

robberyhurglary. For the CC-only sample, the top charge at arrest was nearly always criminal contempt, as 

expected. Nearly all the pre cases were arrested on I3 or C felony charges (felony severity ranges from A, the 

most severe, to E, the least severe). Arrest charges were less severe on average in the FDVC sample, with twothirds of the cases arrested on B or C felonies but also many cases arrested for lower-level felonies. This 

indicates a broader range of charge severity in the FDVC period. CC-only cases were predominantly E 

Description of the Incident. For the pre and FDVC samples, the majority of cases involved physical conArrest Charges. Two-thirds or more of the pre and FDVC samples were arrested on charges of assault or 

oelonies and A misdemeanors at arrest. 

Regression analyses found that the factors which best predicted severity of the top arrest charges were (see 

Table 4 for detailed statistical information): 

0 Cases in the CC-only sample had less severe arrest charges than cases in the pre sample (to be expected due to the fact that the CC-only sample was defined as cases with felony protection order 

violations, D and E felonies. as the highest indictment charge); 

Cases which did not have a prior order of protection were likely to have more severe arrest charges 

than those that did have prior orders (again this is likely due to the effects of the laws felonizing protection order violations, and how the CC-only sample was defined); and 

0 Cases with physical injury or use of weapons had more severe arrest charges. 

Defendants’ criminal history, history of abuse against the victim, whether the victim and defendant lived 

together, and whether the victim wanted to have the charges dropped did not influence the severity of the top 

arrest charge. This suggests that when police officers make an arrest (at least for cases which later get indicted), their charging decisions are based on the facts of the current incident rather than these extraneous 

factors. in line with the Department’s policy of mandatory arrest for domestic violence based on probable cause 

(implemented in 1994 and thus applying to all these cases). 

50 Specia/ized Felony Domestic i/,o/ence Courts 

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.
'ABLE 3. Current Criminal Offense 

Description of the Incident 

Pre 

Sample 

(N = 93) 

7. Information Reported in the Police Report a 

Physical contact during incident 

Injury sustained due to the incident 

Weapon used during incident 

Medical attention sought due to incident 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges 

2. Top Charge at Arrest 

Attempted murder and murder 

Assault 

Criminal contempt 

Robbery or burglary 

Possession or use of a weapon or firearm 

Arson 

Sex offense (rape, sodomy, sexual abuse) 

Other (kidnapping, drug offense) 

3. Severity of Top Charge at Arrest 

A Felony 

B Felony 

C Felony 

D Felony 

E Felony 

A Misdemeanor 

Mean severity of top charge (A felony = 5, E felony = 7) 

4. Top Charge at Grand Jury Indictment 

Attempted murder and murder 

Assault 

Criminal contempt 

Robbery or burglary 

Possession or use of a weapon or firearm 

Arson 

Sex offense (rape, sodomy, sexual abuse) 

Kidnapping 

5. Severity of Top Charge at Indictment 

A Felony 

B Felony 

C Felony 

D Felony 

E Felony 

Mean severity of top charge (A felony = 5, E felony = 7) 

6. Charges Reduced, Arrest to Indictment' 

7. Charges Upgraded, Arrest to Indictment ' 

80% 

8 0 o/o 

76% 

39%' 

46% 

10% 

7% 

19% 

8 Yo 

4% 

2 Yo 

1 Yo 

50% 

0 Yo 

36%' 

47% 

9% 

1 Yo 

8% 

3.02' 

9% 

46% 

2%- 

9% 

24% 

5 '/o 

3 yo 

2% 

0% 

43% 

40% 

9% 

9 Yo 

3.17 

16% 

27%' 

FD VC CC-only 

Sample Sample 

- (N = 109) (N = 27) 

85% 

85% 

73% 

52% 

40% 

4 '/o 

42% 

16% 

25% 

4 yo 

3% 

1 Yo 

4% 

4 '/o 

21 Yo 

10% 

6% 

15% 

45% 

2.63 

5 yo 

39% 

1 1 Yod 

32% 

5 yo 

3% 

3% 

2% 

1 Yo 

35% 

49% 

9% 

6 Yo 

3.15 

1 6% 

41% 

41 Yo*" 

41 %"* 

19%"' 

78%" 

21 Yo' 

0% 

9%" 

83%"' 

4%' 

0 % 

0% 

0% 

4 yo 

4% 

4 '/o 

7%*** 

0%' 

48%"' 

37%" 

1.04"' 

0 % 

O%*** 

100%"' 

0%"' 

0 Yo 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0 % 

0%"' 

O%'** 

7% 

93%"' 

1.07"** 

15% 

4 1 O/O 

- 

* p < .IO * p < .05 ** p c.01 *+* p < ,001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

Note: N = 229. Unless otherwise noted (footnote a), the source is the official case record. 

a The source for information under point (I), description of the incident, is the police report filed after the incident 

Includes attempted charges. 

A case is defined as having charges reduced or upgraded if the top indictment charge is respectively less oi 

more severe than the top arrest charge. 

'These cases also had other felony indictment charges at an equal or lower level of severity. 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 5 1 

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 4. Predictors of Arrest Charge Severity from OLS Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Significance Level 

Sample 

FDVC (versus pre) 

criminal contempt only (versus pre) 

Any prior criminal conviction 

Any prior violent felony conviction 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 

Victim lives with defendant 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Prior order of protection 

Current incident information 

Physical injury sustained due to the incident 

Weapon used 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges 

Prior criminal history 

Prior relationship history 

Constant 

Adjusted R square 

F statistic 

Degrees of freedom 

-.262 

-1.232"' 

,026 

,114 

-.306 

.161 

-.066 

.124 

-.417' 

,608"' 

,625"' 

.001 

2.243"' 

-381 

10.01 0"' 

12 

,168 

.290 

,120 

00 1 

,182 ,888 

. 1 92 ,555 

.185 ,101 

,166 ,334 

.204 ,749 

.257 ,631 

.201 ,040 

,207 ,004 

. 1 93 ,001 

.169 ,995 

.301 .001 

~ ~~ 

Nofe N = 204 of 229 possible cases (due lo missing data on one or more independent variables for 25 cases) 

ID< 10 'D< 05 **p< 01 "'p< 001 

,ndictment Charges. As with arrest charges', the most frequent charges at indictment were assault and 

robberyhurglary for the pre and FDVC cases. and criminal contempt for the CC-only sample (by definition). 

The severity of indictment charges was similar for pre and FDVC cases, with most cases in both samples 

indicted as B or C felonies. Nearly all the CC-only cases were indicted as E felonies, a significantly lower 

level of severity. See Table 3 for these statistics. 

Table 5 shows the results of regression analyses to identify significant predictors of indictment charge severity. These findings indicate that the DA's evidence-based prosecution policy (established in 1995 and thus 

in effect for all three samples of cases) has been implemented, at least for indictment charges. Prosecutors' 

indictment charging decisions are determined by the severity of the arrest charge (which is influenced by the 

facts of the incident) and whether there was a physical injury from the incident, rather than the victims' wishes 

around charging, the defendants' criminal history, or features of the relationship or the history of abuse 

between the victim and defendant. Cases in the pre sample were indicted on more severe charges than cases in 

the CC-only sample, but this is due to how the CC-only sample was defined. 

Table 3 presents an analysis of charge reduction and upgrading practices by comparing the severity of arrpct and inrlirtrnpnt rharoec Thic inrlirntec that while rhar0-c wprp rt=rliird at cimilar lnixi IPXTP~C arrncc tho 

three samples. upgrading is significantly more likely since the specialized court started. About 40% of FDVC 

and CC-only cases had charges upgraded, compared with about one-fourth of pre cases. Taken together with 

information on the offenses and police actions, it seems that the nature of felony offenses and the types of 

arrest charges (excluding CC-only cases) didn't change much from pre to FDVC cases, but that those arrested 

for less severe offenses, including misdemeanors, are more likely to have charges upgraded to obtain a felony 

indictment and adjudication by the FDVC. This bolsters prosecutors' reports of using stronger indictment 

practices since the court began, so that the court is handling a broader range of cases, including some that 

might previously have been handled in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. 

a 

52 Speciaiized feiony Domestic Violence Courts 

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 5. Predictors of Indictment Charge Severity from OLS Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Significance Level - 

Sample 

FDVC (versus pre) 

CC-only (versus pre) 

Any prior criminal conviction 

Any prior violent felony conviction 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 

Victim lives with defendant 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Prior order of protection 

Current incident information 

Physical injury sustained due to the incident 

Weaponused 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges 

Arrest charge severity 

Constant 

Prior criminal history 

Prior relationship history 

Adjusted R square 

F statistic 

Degrees of freedom 

.043 

-1.468"' 

,017 

.012 

-.043 

,060 

-.OB1 

,090 

-.047 

.367' 

,100 

-.166 

.205"' 

2.301 *** 

,475 

15.391"' 

13 

.118 

,211 

.I27 

.134 

,130 

.116 

,143 

.180 

.142 

. 1 48 

,138 

.118 

,050 

.238 

,714 

.001 

,894 

,929 

,739 

,609 

,573 

.616 

,740 

,014 

.468 

.I61 

,001 

,001 

Note N = 204 of 229 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 25 cases) 

'p< 10 'p< 05 "p< 01 "'pc 001 - 

THE IMPACT OF THE FDVC MODEL ON CASE PROCESSING 

The FDVC model includes some substantial changes in how felony cases are handled during the adjudication process from Supreme Court arraignment to disposition. These include the assignment of a victim 

advocate in all cases, and the use of mechanisms to enhance defendant monitoring and accountability (including protection orders, program requirements, and in-court status appearances as conditions of pre-disposition 

release, and sanctions for non-compliance with court-ordered conditions). Our research documented the use of 

these measures and assessed the impact of FDVC on case processing time. This is a standard performance 

measure used by court administrators, although it was not a substantive program goal. 

Our findings indicate that under the FDVC model advocacy was significantly increased, such that all victims were assigned an advocate. Orders of protection 

were also used at a higher rate, for virtually all FDVC-processed cases. Most 

defendants adjudicated since the Court began were released prior to disposition, 

and this rate was marginally higher than the release rate for cases processed prior 

to the FDVC. Release seems more likely to be related to severity of the current 

charges and prior history, rather than to Court policies encouraging release. 

Those who were released by the FDVC were much more likely to be ordered to 

attend a batterers' intervention program and somewhat more likely to be required 

to receive substance abuse treatment, compared with the pre-FDVC cases. Many 

cases were re-jailed for re-arrests or infractions of release conditions, especially 

those with prior criminal contempt convictions (indicating a general tendency to 

ignore court orders). The time from felony arraignment to disposition was somewhat higher for the FDVC cases than the pre cases, but case processing time was 

Specialized Felony Domeshc Violence Courts 53 

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.
better predicted by severity of charges and factors around pre-disposition release. 

There were no differences in the total number of pre-disposition appearances for 

pre and FDVC cases when controlling for total time of adjudication. Since we were 

unable to distinguish monitoring appearances from other types of appearances, 

it is not clear how the FDVC model’s monitoring component was implemented, 

and whether types of appearances differed over time. 

TABLE 6. Supreme Court Case Processing in the Pre-Disposition Phase 

- 

Pre 

Sample 

(N = 93) 

FDVC 

Sample 

(N = 109) 

CC-only 

Sample 

(N = 27) 

1. Victim Services 

Victim Advocate assigned to victim (FDVC) 

2. Orders of Protection 

Order of protection issued by S.C. judge 

3. Pre-Disposition Defendant Release Status 

Released during case (vs. jailed throughout) 

Rejailed for infraction (of those released)” 

Of those rejailed at least once: 

Rejailed once 

Rejailed twice or more 

Rejailed three times or more 

4. Release Conditions (only if released during caseJb 

Condition: batterers’ interventionb 

Condition: substance abuse treatmentb 

Other release condition‘ 

5. Case Processing Statistics 

Days from arrest to Supreme Ct. arraignment 

Days from S.C. arraignment to disposition 

S.C. pre-disp. appearanceslyear (mean) 

Appearance warrant issued (arrest to disposition) 

Of those incurring at least 1 warrant: 

One warrant issued 

Two or more warrants issued 

Mean number of warrants issued 

55%”’ 

87%“ 

58%’ 

39% 

79% 

15% 

6 Yo 

0%”’ 

4%’ 

2 Yo 

41.6 

168.6‘ 

18.37 

23% 

74% 

26% 

1.36 

100% 

98% 

70% 

39% 

74% 

25% 

1 % 

70% 

12% 

5 Yo 

52.3 

216.4 

18.70 

26% 

73% 

27% 

1.38 

100% 

96% 

73% 

63%‘ 

58% 

17% 

25% 

53% 

16% 

5 % 

49.8 

200.0 

19.11 

40% 

83% 

17% 

1.18 

+ p < 10 

Note N = 221 to 227 depending on the number of cases with missing data 

a N = 149, based on 149 total cases released at some point during the pre disposition period 

’ For the FDVC sample, 5% of those released during the case were mandated to both batterers’ and substance abuse programs 

p < 05 *+ p < 01 *** p < 001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

Other release conditions might include remaining outside Kings County, a curfew or having to call the judge’s chambers every night 

Victim Advocacy 

Before the Court began, several victim advocate positions were established within the Domestic Violence 

Bureau of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office and Safe Horizon had advocates in the courthouse. However, 

clear policies were not established as to when a victim advocate would be assigned to a victim. The assignment 

was sporadic, dependent on factors such as whether the assistant district attorney happened to see the victim in 

court and make a referral. Under the FDVC model, a victim advocate from the District Attorney’s office or 

from the nonprofit, Safe Horizon (formerly Victim Services), should be assigned to all victims. The data in 

Table 6 confirm that whereas an advocate was assigned in about half the pre cases, an advocate was assigned 0. all the cases handled by the specialized court (FDVC and CC-only samples). Data were not available on the 

number or nature of the contacts between victims and their advocates. or on the advocacy’s impact on perceptions of safety or overall well-being. 

54 Specialized Felony Domestic Vdence Courts 

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.
Orders of Protection 

Under the FDVC model, the judge should issue an order of protection at the defendant’s first appearance 

in Supreme Court. Results in Table 6 show that an order of protection was virtually always imposed on FDVC 

and CC-only defendants. Although a large majority of defendants from the pre sample also had an order of 

protection imposed by the Supreme Court judge, the difference was statistically significant. That is, FDVC 

cases were more likely to have orders of protection in effect during Supreme Court adjudication. 

Pre-Disposition Release Status 

and CC-only defendants’were somewhat more likely than were pre defendants to be released in the predisposition period (Table 6). Since the FDVC model involves more intensive monitoring for released defendants, it is possible that the FDVC judge was more willing to release defendants. Also, as discussed above, it is 

possible that prosecutors’ tendency to indict less serious cases (lower severity of charges, less serious abuse 

history, less serious criminal history of defendant, etc.) meant that cases in the post sample included mqre 

defendants with a low flight risk (the legal release criterion). 

factors were associated with an increased probability of pre-disposition release (see Table 7 for detailed 

information on the statistical analysis): 

Release rates were high across all three samples (over half to nearly three-fourths of the cases), but FDVC 

A logistic regression analysis was conducted to clarify the key predictors of release status. The following 

0 Less serious top arrest charge on a scale from A felony to A misdemeanor; 

0 No order’of protection issued prior to the current incident regarding defendant contact with the victim; 

0 No prior criminal conviction of the defendant for any offense; and 

0 Victim expressed a desire to drop the charges after the indictment. 

There was a marginal effect for sample status, such that FDVC cases were more likely to be released predisposition than were pre cases even when controlling for the other factors in the statistical model, However, 

CC-only cases, which were also adjudicated by the specialized court, were not more likely than pre cases to be 

released, so this is not strong evidence that the FDVC model includes a policy of releasing defendants prior to 

disposition. Rather it would seem that the greater likelihood of FDVC sample cases being released was due to 

the greater variety of cases in this sample, including less serious cases than those processed by the Supreme 

Court prior to the implementation of the specialized court. Cases in which the victim expressed a desire to 

have the charges dropped may have been more likely to be released in response to the victim’s wish that the 

defendant not be incarcerated (which could spring from many reasons), or this variable could be serving as a 

proxy for some other variable that would influence release decisions. 

somewhat higher 63% from the CC-only sample, were subsequently rejailed for a new arrest or a violation of 

one or more bail conditions. Since bail conditions were imposed for very few of the pre-cases (as opposed to 

many of the FDVC and CC-only cases, especially in regard to batterer intervention programs), it seems quite 

likely that re-jailing of released pre-cases was nearly always due to a new arrest. The FDVC and CC-only 

cases may also have been rejailed for violations of bail conditions (in addition to new arrests), especially since 

monitoring and sanctions are an important component of the Court model. The higher percentage for the CConly cases confirms reasonable expectations, since the existence of criminal contempt charges suggests a 

tendency to violate court orders. Indeed, a logistic regression analysis revealed that having a prior conviction 

for criminal contempt was the single statistically significant factor predicting rejailing for defendants on release 

(Table 8). That is, sample status is no longer important when considered in conjunction with prior criminal 

contempt convictions. This finding indicates that defendants entering FDVC with a serious criminal history, 

especially stemming from prior violations of court orders, may require particu1z:y ciose monitoring. 

Of defendants released in the pre-disposition period, 39% from both the pre and FDVC samples, and a 

Specialized felony Domestic Violence Courts 55 

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 7. Predictors of Pre-Disposition Release from Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Sample .166 

FDVC (versus pre) ,662' .357 ,064 1.938 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) .640 ,641 ,317 1.897 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior conviction -.843' ,375 ,025 ,430 

Arrest charge severity -.462" -152 ,002 ,630 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim -1.459"' ,443 ,001 ,232 

Prior physical assault ,653 ,457 ,153 1.922 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges ,936" ,360 .009 2.550 

Defendant employed 

Victim lives with defendant 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction 

Prior criminal contempt conviction 

Prior sexual abuse 

Physical injury sustained due to the incident 

Weapon used during incident 

Nagelkerke R square .235 

Constanf 2.801"' .748 ,001 8.677 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Chi-square 36-87 1 *** 

Degrees of freedom 7 

Note: N = 198 of 229 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 33 cases). Variables were initially 

entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds ,200). This generated a final model including the 

variables listed above the dashed line. Due to their insignificance in earlier models, variables listed below the dashed line were 

subsequently dropped from the analysis. 

+ p < .10 p < .05 ** p < .01 *+* p < ,001 

TABLE 8. Predictors of Rejailing from Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior conviction ,682 ,532 ,200 1.979 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction ,850 .sa2 ,145 2.339 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 2.21 1 Iff ,518 ,001 9.125 

Victim lives with defendant -.601 ,466 . 1 90 ,543 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim .759 ,475 .110 2.136 

Physical injury sustained due to incident ,763 ,579 .la8 2.144 

Constant 2.489"' ,083 .......... ....................................... 

Defendant employed 

Arrest charge severity 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Weapon used during incident 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges 

Nagelkerke R square ,420 

Chi-square 4 8.5 5 7"' 

Degrees of freedom 6 

............................................................................................................................................... ...... ............................. 

Note N = 198 of 229 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 33 cases) Variables were initially 

entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds 200) This generated a final model including the 

variables llsted above the dashed line Due lo their insignificance in earlier models, variables listed below the dashed :,,>e were 

subsequently dropped from the analysis 

'p< 10 'p< 05 "p< 01 "'p< 001 

56 Speciaiired Feiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
Re’lease Conditions 

One of the most significant components of the FDVC model involves mandating defendants to programs, 

particularly batterers’ intervention. as a release condition. The Court does this primarily to monitor defendants, 

while taking an officially agnostic view on the rehabilitative effects of the intervention. Table 6 shows that, in 

addition to orders of protection, many cases processed since the FDVC started (FDVC and CC-only samples) 

were ordered to batterers’ intervention as a condition of pre-disposition release, whereas this condition was not 

used prior to the FDVC. 411 these defendants were ordered to NYCAAP for batterer intervention, as it was the 

only program working with felony cases during the timeframe of the FDVC sample (1997-98). The Court is 

no longer referring cases to NYCAAP because of problems in reporting and concerns about service provision. 

Although not many defendants have been ordered to substance abuse treatment as a release condition, treatment was more frequently required after the Court started than before. These findings document that the 

principle of enhanced defendant monitoring through referrals to intervention programs has been implemented 

by the specialized court. 

Case Processing Statistics 

Data were obtained on Supreme Court case processing time before and after implementation of the specialized court (Table 6). The data indicate that time from Supreme Court arraignment to disposition was longer for 

cases processed by the Court, averaging six-and-a-half to seven months vs. five-and-a-half months for the pre 

cases. Although these results may be of interest to court administrators, project staff made clear that increasing the 

speed of case processing was never an important goal. In fact, a more hands-on approach may require a longer 

period of involvement because of the complexity of these cases. The results of regression analyses indicate that, 

when controlling for other factors, the FDVC sample took only marginally longer to dispose than the pre sample, 

although the CC-only sample took significantly longer than the pre sample.‘ Other factors which tended to 

increase adjudication time, regardless of sample status, included (see Table 9 for details): 

0 More severe indictment charges; 

0 Defendants released prior to disposition; 

Defendants who were not ordered to substance abuse treatment as a condition of pre-disposition release; 

0 Released defendants who were rejailed for infractions; and 

0 No appearance warrants issued for released defendants. 

It’s not clear how the finding on appearance warrants fits in, but it seems that one way to reduce processing time might be to reduce pre-disposition release and increase treatment requirements for those who are 

released, both of which should logically reduce the rate of remands for infractions. Of course, these practices 

would have implications beyond processing time which would need to be carefully examined and weighed. 

Data were also collected on the number of pre-disposition Supreme Court appearances made by defendants in the three samples (Table 6). When controlling for the length of the adjudication process (by 

computing the average number of appearances per year), defendants in all three samples made an average of 18 

to 19 such appearances per year; this did not vary by sample. Unfortunately it was not possible to distinguish 

different types of appearances in the case file reviews, so these data cannot be used to assess how faithfully the 

monitoring schedule was implemented by the specialized court. However, since the Court used certain 

practices to reduce the number of appearances for evidentiary purposes (such as expedited open file discovery), 

it is possible that the types of appearances differed over time such that more of the appearances for the FDVC: 

and CC-only samples were for monitoring purposes. It is also possible that monitoring was addressed during 

appearances for other purposes. 

Since the mean time for the CC-only sample was actually lower than the mean time for the FDVC sample, the fact that 

the difference from the pre sample’s time was more significant for the CC-only sample may be due to how the variance IS 

distributed. or the power of statistical analyses when one group (the CC-only) is rather small 

Specialized felony Domestic Violence Courts 57 

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, the rate at which warrants had to be issued for a failure to appear for court dates was investigated 

*able 6).9 These rates ranged from 17% to 33%, but there were no statistically significant differences across 

the samples. Nearly all defendants who disappeared eventually returned on a warrant, voluntarily or involuntarily. As of this analysis, only one case from the pre sample and none from either the post or CC-only samples 

were still listed as out on a pre-disposition warrant. 

TABLE 9. Predictors of Time from Supreme Court Arraignment to Disposition from OLS Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Significance Level 

Sample 

FDVC (versus pre) 44.076' 23.736 ,065 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 122.202" 40.181 ,003 

Indictment charge severity 43.554*" 11.357 ,001 

Defendant released during case (vs. jailed throughout) 98.794'*' 25.206 .001 

Defendant rejailed for infraction (following release) 60.218' 24.647 .015 

Conditions of release ,124 .257 ,631 

Batterers' intervention -7.989 27.781 ,774 

Substance abuse treatment -108,939' 42.607 ,011 

Appearance warrant issued while case was pending -51.329' 23.321 ,029 

Constant -124.81 3' 56.499 .028 

Adjusted R square ,176 

F statistic 7.025"' 

Degrees of freedom 8 

Note: N = 227 of 229 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 2 cases). 

+ p < .10 * p < .05 *+ p < .01 *** p < ,001 

IMPACT OF FDVC ON CASE DISPOSITION AND SENTENCING PRACTICES 

One of the most fundamental questions to address when evaluating this specialized court model is, what 

difference did it make in how cases were resolved? In other words, how did the FDVC dispose of cases, and 

how did this differ from practices before implementation of the Court? 

Section 

5 u m ma r y 

The rate of convictions rose somewhat under the FDVC model, but the difference 

from the pre sample did not reach statistical significance, nor was changing the 

conviction rate a goal of the specialized Court. There was a significant difference, 

however, in methods of disposition: compared with the pre cases, the FDVC cases 

were more likely to be resolved by guilty plea, rather than going to trial. Analyses 

indicate that the Court itself, along with factors related to evidence and case 

processing, may have led to more plea negotiations. While plea bargaining is also 

not a goal of the model, it does represent a less resource-intensive and therefore 

less costly method of disposition for the court system. Conviction charges in the 

FDVC sample were less severe, more likely to be of a lower severity level than 

indictment charges, and less likely to be violent felony offenses, compared with 

the pre sample. This is not surprising given the higher rates of plea bargaining 

in the FDVC sample. Factors related to abuse history, characteristics of the 

These data apply to the entire period between arrest and disposition, as it was not possible to distinguish between .? warrants issued prior to indictment and those issued by the Supreme Court after indictment. However, about 80% of the 

time between arrest and disposition was spent in Supreme Court for all samples, so these are likely to be Supreme Court 

warrants in most cases. 

58 Spec/a//red Feioriy Dornestlc Vjolence Courts 

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.
criminal incidents, and how the system processed the case (in terms of charging, 

release, and processing time) were related to the "toughness" of conviction 

charges; type of court per se was not. Sentencing for convicted cases was neither 

more punitive nor more treatment-oriented, on the whole, than sentencing practices before the Court began. Given that charges in the FDVC sample were less 

severe and plea bargaining more likely, it is not surprising that sentencing practices were not harsher for these cases. 

TABLE 10. Disposition Information 

Pre FD VC CC-only 

Sample Sample Sample - 

1. Type of Disposition 

Convicted 

Guilty plea 

Tried and found guilty 

Dismissed 

Acquitted at trial 

For convicted cases only: 

2. Top Charge at Disposition 

Murder or attempted murder 

Assault 

Criminal contempt 

Robbery or burglary 

Possession or use of a weapon or firearm 

Arson 

Sex offense or child endangerment 

Other (menacing, harrassment, unlawful 

impris., bail jumping, crim. mischief) 

3. Top Charge=Violent Fel. Offense 

4. Severity of Top Charge at Disposition 

A Felony 

B Felony 

C Felony 

D Felony 

E Felony 

A Misdemeanora 

Mean severity of top charge 

(A felony=5, E feJony=l) 

5. Charges Reduced, Indictment to Disposition 

(N=93) 

87% 

73% ** 

14%* 

8% 

4% 

(N=8 1) 

3% 

5 2 '/a 

1 1 %' 

15% 

10% 

5 % 

2 Oh 

2% 

45%' 

0% 

17%" 

28% 

12% 

15% 

27% 

1.94' 

54%"' 

(N= 709) 

94 % 

88% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

(N= 102) 

2 % 

36% 

22% 

16% 

9 Yo 

2 % 

0% 

13% 

31 % 

0% 

4% 

23% 

19% 

21 % 

34% 

1.41 

78% 

(N=27) 

93% 

89% 

4% 

7% 

0% 

(N=25) 

0 Yo 

8%" 

88%"' 

0%' 

0 % 

0% 

0 YO 

4 % 

0 70 

0% 

0% 

0%' 

8 % 

75%"' 

17%' 

.91"' 

17%"' 

- 

* p < 10 * p c 05 ** p c 01 *** p < 001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

a Includes one case disposed as a violation 

A case is defined as having charges reduced if the top disposition charge is less severe than the lop indictment charge (e g , C 

felony instead of B felony, A misdemeanor instead of E felony, etc ) - 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 59 

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 Dispositions 

Conviction Rates. Table 10 presents descriptive information on case disposition factors for our three samples. Cases in the pre sample had a conviction rate of 87%, which was not statistically lower than the rates of 

94% and 93% for cases adjudicated by the FDVC. The goal of this Court - like any court - is not to obtain 

convictions per se (it is the role of the police to arrest the guilty parties and the role of prosecution to prove 

their guilt) but to provide due process and justice. It is therefore not surprising that conviction rates did not 

change significantly under the model, since more aggressive police and prosecution practices were implemented prior to the start of the Court and applied for the pre cases as well. Regression analyses showed that 

conviction was predicted not by the type of court processing the case but by factors related to the quality of the 

evidence: when there was a physical injury from the incident, when the victim did not wish to drop charges 

(which may be related to increased willingness to testify or otherwise participate with prosecution), and when 

the defendant had a prior conviction for criminal contempt (showing a pattern of illegal behavior or prior "bad 

acts," which have been admitted into evidence). See Table 11 for these results. 

TABLE 11. Predictors of Conviction from Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Defendant employed .809 ,544 .137 2.245 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction -.755 .580 .193 ,470 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 1.656' .804 .039 5:240 

Physical injury sustained due'to the incident 1.039' 3.059 ,080 2.827 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges" -1.715** ,583 ,003 .180 

1.977" ,652 ,002 7.221 

Sample type (pre, FDVC, or CC-only) 

Any prior conviction 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim 

Weapon used during incident 

Nagelkerke R square ,206 

Chi-square 19.566" 

Co?s!an! ...................... ............... .......................................... ................................ ._.............. ............ ._____._.._............ ......._.._._. . .......................... 

9 

Degrees of freedom 5 ~ 

Note N = 198 of 229 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 33 cases) Variables were initially 

entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds 200) This generated a final model including the 

variables listed above the dashed line Due to their insignificance in earlier models, variables listed below the dashed line were 

subsequently dropped from the analysis 

'p< 10 'p< 05 "p< 01 "'p< 001 

Method of Disposition. Although conviction rates remained stable, method of disposition changed under 

the FDVC (Table 10). More cases pled guilty under the specialized Court (although many cases pled guilty 

before the Court as well), whereas cases were more likely to go to trial and be found guilty in the pre-Court 

period. It was not a goal of the Court to affect disposition methods, but this finding is not surprising in light of 

reports that having a court that was designed to take these cases very seriously may have made the defense less 

likely to gamble on a favorable outcome at trial. Increased defendant monitoring and contact with victims may 

have also improved the quality of evidence for the prosecution. While not a goal of the Court, resolving more 

cases by guilty plea is less resource-intensive and thus less expensive for the court system. Regression analyses 

support both interpretations: the significant or nearly significant predictors for disposition by guilty plea were: 

victims who did not wish charges dropped (and may have participated more extensively with prosecution); 

when there was a physical injury (stronger evidence); 

shorter Supreme Court case processing time (this actually seems more of an effect of pleading than a cause, 

since cases that go to trial can be expected to take longer because of the length of the trial process); and 

0 processing by the FDVC; 

0 

0 

60 Speoalized Felony Dornestlc Vloience Courts 

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.
when defendants were released prior to disposition (these cases received more intensive monitoring 

and victim services). See Table 12 for these analyses. 

TABLE 12. Predictors of Guilty Plea Disposition from Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Sample 

FDVC (versus pre) 1.140' .458 ,013 3.126 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 1.105 ,805 ,170 3.01 9 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior violent felony conviction -.954 ,460 ,038 ,385 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim 587 .443 ,I a5 1.798 

Physical injury sustained due to the incident ,961' ,524 ,067 2.61 3 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges -1.269" .458 ,006 .2a1 

Days from Supreme Court indictment to disposition -.005"' .001 .001 ,995 ' 

Defendant released during case .966' ,497 .052 2.627 

Constant ,441 ,366 ,648 1.555 

Any prior conviction 

Prior criminal contempt conviction 

Weapon used during incident 

Indictment charge severity 

Condition of release: batterers' intervention 

Nagelkerke R square ,248 

Chi-square 32.934"' 

Degrees of freedom 8 

...................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... ........................................ 

Nofe N = 204 of 227 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 23 cases) Note that 2 additional 

cases were excluded from this analysis because the defendantd were respectively out on a warrant and abated Variables were initially 

entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds 200) This generated a final model including the 

variables listed above the dashed line Due to their insignificance in earlier models, variables listed below the dashed line were 

subsequently dropped from the analysis 

+p< 10 'p< 05 "p< 01 "'p< 001 

Disposition Charges. In keeping with the types of charges brought at arrest and indictment, the convictions in the pre and FDVC samples were most often for assault, criminal contempt, or robberyhurglary, and 

the CC-only sample was nearly always convicted on contempt (Table 10). The samples differed significantly 

in that the pre sample was less likely to be convicted on criminal contempt than the FDVC sample (not 

surprising since the implementation of the felony provisions went into effect shortly after the Court started), 

and the CC-only sample was more likely to be convicted on contempt (again unsurprising because of how this 

sample was defined). 

Nearly half the pre sample was convicted on violent felony offenses, defined under New York state laws 

to include various charges and seventy levels of murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual offenses, kidnapping, 

arson, burglary, robbery, intimidating victims or witnesses, and firearms and other weapons charges (Table 10). 

This was significantly more than the nearly one-third of the FDVC sample convicted on such charges, and is 

likely due to the higher rate of criminal contempt (not a violent felony) convictions in the FDVC sample. 

the FDVC sample than the CC-only sample (Table 10). For the pre sample. three-quarters of the cases were 

convicted on felonies ranging from B to E, and the other one-quarter was convicted on misdemeanors. Twothirds of the FDVC sample was convicted on B to E felonies, and the other one-third on misdemeanors. Less 

than one-fifth of the CC-only sample was convicted on misdemeanors, but nearly all the felony convictions 

were on E felonies. 

While charges were more likely to be upgraded from arrest to indictment for the FDVC and CC-only 

samples (as shown in Table 3), charges were more likely to be reduced from indictment to disposition for the 

Top conviction charges were significantly more severe for the pre sample than the FDVC sample, and for 

Speoa/ized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 6 1 

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.
FDVC sample than for the pre or CC-only samples (Table lo). Indeed, top charges are least severe on average 

et conviction, but the severity of these charges is more similar to the severity levels at arrest than the indictment 

charges. This confirms prosecution reports that indictment has been more vigorous1,y pursued since the Court 

began, since prosecutors will try to get cases into the Court for the defendant supervision and victim services 

even if they know they're unlikely to obtain convictions on the upgraded charges. 

Regression analyses examined the role of various factors in explaining three indicators of seriousness of 

conviction charges: charge severity (A felony to A misdemeanor), no reduction in charge severity from 

indictment. and conviction on a violent'felony offense. Analyses found that (see Table 13 for details): 

0 Prior sexual abuse of the victim by the offender was associated with more severe conviction charges, 

no reduction in severity from,indictment, and conviction on a violent felony offense; 

0 Defendants who were not released prior to disposition had more severe conviction charges, no reduction in severity from indictment, and more convictions on a violent felony offense (it seems likely that 

a third, unmeasured factor influences both pre-disposition release and conviction charges obtained); 

0 More severe arrest charges were associated with more severe disposition charges and conviction on a 

violent felony offense; 

0 Cases which were processed more quickly through the felony courts were less likely to have charges 

reduced from indictment to disposition, and more likely to be convicted on a violent felony offense 

(perhaps these are cases in which the prosecution had an extremely strong position for negotiating a 

plea because it had very good evidence) ; 

0 No reduction in charge severity from indictment to disposition was also associated with cases in the 

CC-only (vs. the pre) sample, incidents in which a weapon was used, inciderits when no medical attention was required, and no upgrading of charges from arrest to indictment. 

TABLE 13. Analyses of Disposition Charges 

13a. Predictors of Top Disposition Charge Severity from OLS Regressions 

- Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sir. Level 

..... ..... .............. ...... ........... ............ 

62 Specialized Felony Domesfic Violence Courts 

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.
13B. Predictors of Top Charge Reduction from Indictment to Disposition from 

Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient StaiTdard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Sample type ,000 

FDVC (versus pre) 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Physical injury sustained due to incident 

Weapon used during incident 

Medical attention required due to incident 

Arrest charge severity 

Prior abuse history 

Initial Incident and Charge Characteristics 

,636 .406 ,117 1.889 

-3.0 12"' .799 .oo 1 .049 

-.062 ,426 ,884 ,940 

.I .491* ,642 ,020 ,225 

.a61 ,586 ,142 2.365 

-.909+ ,491 .064 ,403 

,949' .502 ,059 2.582 

,274 ,227 ,227 1.31 5 

Charges upgraded between arrest and indictment 1.153' .589 ,050 3.168 

Defendant released during case 1.330"' ,389 ,001 3.780 

Days, Supreme Court arraignment to disposition .003' ,002 ,056 1.003 

Constant -4.213" 1.598 .007 ,013 

Key case processing variables 

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

Nagelkerke R square ,433 

Degrees of freedom 11 

Chi-square 74.428"' 

Note N = 195 of 208 possible cases with a conviction (due to rntssing data on one or more independent variables for 13 cases) 

'p< 10 ^p< 05 "p< 01 "'p< 001 

13C. 

Predictors Coefficient Staridard Error S/g Level Odds Ratio 

Sample type 298 

Predictors of Violent Felony Offense Conviction from Logistic Regressions 

FDVC (versus pre) 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Prior abuse history 

Initial Incident and Charge Characteristics 

-.546 .364 ,133 .579 

-8.177 19.316 ,672 ,000 

,080 ,402 342 1.083 

1.288' .585 .028 3.626 

Physical injury sustained due to incident ,134 ,578 .817 1.143 

Weapon used during incident .IO5 ,428 ,807 1.110 

Medical attention required due to incident -.566 .432 .I 90 ,568 

Arrest charge severity ,392' .218 ,072 1.480 

Charges upgraded between arrest and indictment .662 517 ,200 1.939 

Key case processing variables 

Defendant released during case -.799' ,362 .028 ,450 

Days, Supreme Court arraignment to disposition -.003' ,001 ,092 ,997 

..................... Constant ......................................................................................................................................... ,697 1.410 ,621 ................................... 2.007 

Nagelkerke R square ,347 

Degrees of freedom 11 

Chi-square 57.103". 

Note: N = 196 of 208 possible cases with a conviction (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 12 cases) 

+ p < .10 * p < 05 ** p < 01 *** p < .001 

Specialfzed Felony Dornestlc Violence Courts 63 

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.
sentencing Practices for Convictions 

In keeping with previous findings on convictiorl rates. charges, and methods. sentencing practices did not 

appear harsher for FDVC cases than for pre-cases. This is not surprising since charges against the FDVC cases 

were not more severe than charges against the pre-cases, and convictions in FDVC cases were more likely to 

be by guilty plea (in which sentencing is typically negotiated). 

jail/probation split) - 73% of pre-cases, 63% of FDVC cases, and 76% of CC-only cases. This is quite 

noteworthy for the CC-only cases, as these cases would never have gotten prison time, and infrequently jail 

time, prior to legal changes allowing telony-level charges. 

Table 14 shows that there was a marginally higher likelihood of being sentenced to prison for cases in the 

pre sample, and that significantly more imprisoned offenders in the pre sample were sentenced to longer terms 

and served more time. In contrast, FDVC cases were more likely than pre cases to get a conditional discharge, 

which involves neither incarceration nor probation. 

Across the three samples, the majority of cases were sentenced to incarceration (prison, jail, or 

TABLE 14. Sentencing Practices 

Pre FD VC CC-only 

Sample Sample Sample 

1. Type of Sentence (if convicted) 

Prison 

Maximum prison sentence up to 4 years 

Maximum prison sentence exceeds 4 years 

Jail (sentence of up to 1 year) 

JaiVprobation split 

No jail or prison 

Probation only 

Conditional discharge 

TASC-like sentenceb 

(N = 81) 

45%' 

15% 

30°/'" 

7% 

21 Yo 

27% 

18% 

1 %" 

7 yo 

(N = 98)a 

33% 

21 Yo 

12% 

9 % 

21 Yo 

36% 

12% 

1 1 Yo 

1 3% 

(N = 25) 

32% 

24% 

8 Yo 

0% 

44%' 

24% 

8% 

0% 

16% 

2. Estimated number of months incarcerated' 26.1' 12.6 8.1 

3. Treatment Mandate (only of defendants 

sentenced to jaiMprobation split, probation, 

conditional discharge, or TASC-like sentence) (N = 38) (N = 57) (N = 17) 

Sentenced to any intervention program 74% 60% 82%' 

Sentenced to substance abuse treatment 53%* 30% 59%' 

Sentenced to mental health treatment 16%' 2 Yo 6 Yo 

Sentenced to batterers' intervention 34% 42% 47% 

p c .lo ' p < .05 ** p c.01 +*' p < ,001 (2-tailed t-test I Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

a Four convicted offenders in the FDVC sample are missing sentence information. 

A "TASC-like sentence" indicates that the defendant pled guilty to a felony offense with the understanding that the defendant would 

enter an intervention program (most often substance abuse or mental health). If the defendant successfully completed the program, 

the defendant would have typically been able to re-plead to a misdemeanor offense. 

For defendants arrested after October 1995, convicted of a repeat violent felony offense, and sentenced to prison, estimated time 

incarcerated is 6i7 of their determinate sentence, which is the minimum time that must be served. For defendants arrested before 

October 1995, convicted of a repeat violent felony offense, and sentenced to prison, or for defendants arrested at any point within the 

sampled period, convicted of a first violent felony offense, and sentenced to prison. estimated time incarcerated is 63% of the 

maximum prison time This is based on data for actual time served for 866 defendants convicted of violent ielony offenses in 1996 and 

1997 and sentenced to indeterminate sentences (with both a minimum and a maximum length). For defendants not convicted of a 

violent felony offense and sentenced lo prison, estimated time incarcerated is the minimum prison sentence For defendants 

sentenced lo jail or to a jailiprobation split. estimated time incarcerated is 213 of the jail sentence, which is ;I standard release point for 

"good time" served. 

64 Speciaiized feiony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
Regression analyses showed that the difference between the types of court (general Supreme Court part 

vs. the specialized FDVC) in imposing prison time disappeared when considered in conjunction with other 

factors. The factors which were significant (see Table 15) in producing a prison sentence were: 

When the victim and defendant did not live together at the time of the offense; 

0 When the defendant was not released prior to disposition; 

0 When processing in the Supreme Court took longer (prison time is the strongest punishment and so is 

not an attractive inducement for the defense to reach a plea negotiation); and 

0 Marginally significant, when conviction was on a violent felony offense. 

TABLE 15. Predictors of Receiving a Prison Sentence from Logistic Regressions 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Sample type .lo7 ,107 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) .549 ,741 ,458 1.732 

Victim lives with defendant -1.386"' ,435 .001 ,250 

FDVC (versus pre) -.719 ,464 .121 ,487 

Prior violent felony offense conviction ,747 ,459 .lo3 2.111 

Weapon used during incident .733 ,488 ,133 2.080 

Released during case -2.808"' ,490 ,001 ,060 

Days, Supreme Court arraignment to disposition .005"* ,001 ,001 1.005 

Convicted of violent felony offense on current case ,786' ,464 .090 1.196 

Constant 2.595" ,882 ,003 

Defendant employed 

Any prior conviction 

Prior criminal contempt conviction 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Arrest charge severity 

Physical injury sustained due to incident 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges 

Chi-square 73,746"' 

. .............................................................................. 

Nagelkerke R square ,473 

Degrees of freedom 8 ~ 

Nofe N = 175 of 208 possible cases with a conviction (due lo missing data on one or mor#? independent vanakles for 33 cases) 

Variables were initially entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p value exceeds 200) This generated a final 

model including the variables listed above the dashed line Due to their insignificance in ezrlier models, variables listed below the 

dashed line were subsequently dropped from the analysis 

'pc 10 'p< 05 '^p< 01 "*p< 001 

is shown in Table 14, for the cases not sentenced to imprisonment or straight jail time (straight means 

without a follow-up period of probation), CC-only cases were marginally more likely than FDVC cases to be 

ordered to an intervention program as a condition of sentence. Both pre and CC-only cases were significantly 

more likely than FDVC cases to be sentenced to substance abuse treatment, and pre cases were statistically 

more often sentenced to mental health treatment, compared with FDVC cases. The factors which best predicted a program mandate as part of the sentence for these cases were (see Table 16): 

When the criminal incident produced a physical injury; 

0 Shorter case processing time in the Supreme Court (sentences involving treatment may be more palatable to the defense and/or state, and lead to a shorter plea negotiation plocess): and 

More severe disposition charges (among this set of cases). 

Spwialized Felony Dornestlc Violence Courts 65 

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.
Again. whether the court was a general felony part or the FDVC did not in itself predict treatment reuirements as part of sentencing. It is possible that the FDVC did not order more convicted offenders to a atterers' intervention because many of them had already attended such programs as a condition of predisposition release. 

for probationers and those sentenced to conditional discharge or TASC-like sentences through in-court 

appearances every two months. Unfortunately. data to document that these court appearances were held, and 

on what schedule. were not available. 

Another aspect of defendant monitoring and accountability is the principle of post-disposition monitoring 

TABLE 16. 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Physical injury sustained due to the incident 1.155' ,584 048 3.176 

Victim expressed a desire to drop charges -.760 .499 128 .468 

Disposition charge severity ,496' ,229 030 1.642 

Constant .384 ,559 ,493 1.468 

Arrest charge severity 

Any prior conviction 

Prior criminal contempt conviction 

Prior violent felony offense conviction 

Prior physical assault 

Prior sexual abuse 

Prior order of protection issued with same victim 

Weapon used during incident 

Defendant released during case 

Condition of release: batterers' intervention 

Predictors of Program Mandate as Part of Sentence from Logistic Regressions 

Days, Supreme Court indictment to disposition -.003' ,002 034 ,997 

, . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nagelkerke R square 

Chi-square 

Degrees of freedom 

,187 

14.233" 

4 

Note N = 99 of 113 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 14 cases) Variables were initially 

entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds 200) This generated a final model including the 

variables listed above the dashed line Due to their insignificance in earlier models, variables listed below the dashed line were 

subsequently dropped from the analysis 

-p< 10 *p< 05 "p< 01 '*'p< 001 

IMPACTS OF FDVC ON PROBATION COMPLIANCE AND REPORTED RECIDIVISM 

The final set of questions addressed in our impact analyses concern what is perhaps the most important 

but difficult issue to address: Is the FDVC model associated with any changes in compliance with probation 

and the repeat occurrence of abuse? The Court model's strong emphasis on monitoring and accountability may 

promote compliance with probation conditions. Stopping a notoriously chronic crimsz like domestic violence is 

far too ambitious a goal for any single approach, but it is possible that early indicators of effects on repeat 

abuse by defendants in Court cases might be seen. We examined data on post-sentence probation violations 

and re-arrests to address questions around compliance and official recidivism. 

.? . ze~iwn 1 Our findings on compliance and recidivism are very difficult to interpret because 

we could not distinguish domestic violence from other crimes), ;and because the 

pre/post design used in this evaluation does not allow unequivocal causal attribu- r tions for differences across groups. With this warning in mind, we found that over 

we had to rely on official records of probation violations and repeat arrests (and 

66 Specialized Felony Domestic V/o/ence Courts 

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.
one-third of probationers were charged with probation violations regardless of 

whether they were adjudicated by the specialized Court or by a general felony 

court. Those processed by the FDVC tended to violate probation more quickly, 

which may reflect a greater likelihood of detection and response to FDVC cases. 

Nearly half of all defendants released prior to disposition were arrested again 

during their period of release, regardless of what kind of court adjudicated their 

case. Pre-disposition repeat arrests were more likely when the defendant had a 

criminal conviction on his record, and when the victim did not want charges 

pressed. Arrests during the first 12 and 18 months of the post-disposition period 

(or post-release for incarcerated offenders) were higher for the samples processed 

by the specialized Court (about half of all cases were re-arrested) than for the pre 

sample (about one-quarter of the cases), but the e.ffect for type of court ail but 

disappeared in multivariate analyses which also ccnsidered other factors. The 

strongest and most consistent effect was for prior criminal convictions, especially 

for contempt, such that those with such convictiorls were more likely to be arrested again and to be arrested more quickly. Only limited data were available on 

the types of crimes for which defendants were again arrested, but it seems that 

cases from the pre sample are most often arrested on non-violent felony offenses, 

cases from the FDVC sample are most often arrested on misdemeanors, and CConly cases are most often arrested for criminal contempt again. 

Probation Violations 

Probation violations can be technical in nature (such as a failure to report for an appointment with the 

probation officer) or due to illegal behavior related to domestic violence (such as a protection order violation or 

a new assault) or other crimes not related to domestic violence. Before presenting these data it is important to 

bear in mind that they pertain to reiorted violations only, and several hypotheses about the effects of the 

FDVC model are equally likely. 

supervision, and on victim safety by keeping in touch with victims and reporting incidents to probation or the 

court, offenders adjudicated by the FDVC should be encouraged to comply with probation conditions. Under 

this scenario we would expect to see lower rates of violations for the two FDVC samples. 

Another hypothesis is that the closer post-disposition monitoring, through intensive supervised probation 

and court appearances, as well as the victim services emphasis, may actually lead to higher rates of reported 

violations because violations are more likely to be detected and acted upon. In this case, higher reported rates 

for FDVC cases may mean higher rates of actual violations (non-compli ant or illegal behaviors whether 

reported or not), lower rates of actual violations, or no changes from the pre-FDVC period. These two hypotheses are therefore not incompatible, but cannot be definitively tested with data on reported violations only, 

which was the only type available in this research. 

cases have the highest rate and FDVC cases the lowest, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The combined rate for FDVC and CC-only cases (both were adjudicated by the specialized Court) of 

34% probation violations is quite similar to the pre sample’s rate of 3896, indicating that over one-third of 

probationers have reported violations no matter what type of court adjudicated their case. 

While the number of violators was very small, the times from case disposition to violation report, and 

from disposition to arrest, were shorter for cases processed by the specialized Court (FDVC and CC-only cases 

combined). These very tentative findings may suggest that increased sui-veillance under FDVC produces more 

detection of violations and quicker responses. Another explanation is that, for whatever reasons related or 

unrelated to the Court, FDVC probationers violate their probation more quickly. 

One possibility is that, because of the emphasis on defendant accountability through close monitoring and 

Table 17 shows that probation violation rates seem to vary across the three samples, such that CC-only 

Spmal/zed Felony Domestic Violence Courts 67 

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 17. Post-Sentence Violations by Probationers 

Pre FDVC CC-only 

Sample Sample Sample 

1. Probation Violations (only of defendants 

sentenced to jail/prob. split or probation) (N = 32) (N = 34) (N = 13) 

No probation violation 20 (62%) 24 (71%) 7 (54%) 

Probation violation 12 (38%) 10 (29%) 6 (46%) 

2. Reason for Probation Violation (only of 

defendants with a probation violation) (N = 12) (N = 10) (N = 6) 

Re-arrest: domestic violence-related 4 4 2 

Re-arrest: not domestic violence-related 3 2 2 

Technical violation 3 3 1 

(2 cases missing) (I case missing; (1 case missing) 

3. Probation Violation due to Victim Contact 

(only of defendants with probation violation) (N= 12) (N = 10) (N = 6) 

Violation involved the victim 4 4 3 

Physical assault 3 2 1 

Verbal threat 0 0 2 

Contact with victim but no threat 1 2 0 

4. Time to Probation Violation and Court Response 

(only of defendants with probation violation) (N = 12) (N = 10) (N = 6) 

Days, disposition to probation violation reporta 285.3 143.6 135.4 

Days, disposition to arrest for violationb 399.1 134.8 215.3 

Time lag, probation violation to arrest 72.4 28.2 82.3 

+ p < .10 * p < .05 ** p <.01 *** p < ,001 (2-tailed t!est I Comparison IS always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

a When comparing the pre sample to a combination of the FDVC and CC-only samples, the time from cisposition to violation is 

significantly lower for the combined FDVC-processed sample. Note that for this analysis, data were missing for 1 pre case, 2 

FDVC cases, and 1 CC-only case. 

When comparing the pre sample to a cornbination of the FDVC and CC-only samples, the time from cisposition to arrest was 

significantly lower for the combined FDVC-adjudicated sample. This analysis does not include cases wtiose probation violation 

was technical in nature and hence did not result in an arrest (see results under point 2a). 

The Probation Department recently compiled statistics on felony and misdemeanor cases supervised by 

the ISP Unit in Kings County during 2000. These data indicate that 20% of the cases violated probation. 

About half were technical violations and half re-arrests (more often for domestic violence-related incidents 

than other types of offenses). This is a lower percentage of violations than found fclr our 1997 cases and may 

indicate a decline in violation rates, but it should be noted that the Probation Department statistics include 

misdemeanor cases from criminal court (about 20%), whereas our sample is all Supreme Court felony cases. 

It's also likely that some of the cases in the Probation Department statistics had only been on probation for a 

short time. 

Repeat Arrests 

The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services provided us with data on arrests over the last 

several decades for defendants in our samples, as well as defendants in FDVC and (32-only cases which were 

not subject to complete file reviews (see Appendix C for a description of how the population was defined, how 

the file review sample was selected, and analyses of selection biases). These data allowed us to construct 

criminal history variables already reported in this chapter, and to examine additional arrests durin.? and after 

rocessing of the cases targeted for study here. Unfortunately these data did not differentiate arrests for 

violence offenses from arrests for other offenses. While further acknowled'ging that arrests are not 

68 Specialized felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
foolproof indicators of recidivism, since not all arrested parties are guilty and not all crimes lead to arrests, it is 

the best indicator we have from the data available. 

tions also apply to re-arrests. That is, we might expect FDVC-processed cases to have lower re-arrest rates 

because of the deterrent effects of specialized procedures used by the Court. Or we might expect FDVCprocessed cases to have higher rates because of the greater likelihood of detection and response resulting from 

the specialized procedures. In the absence of reliable data on actual crimes committed by these defendants, we 

must depend on reported crimes for which these defendants were arrested, and these data do not allow us to 

definitively test which of these hypotheses is more likely to be true. 

Another limitation on interpretation of findings is imposed by the pre/post design used in this evaluation. 

Even if it could be reliably inferred that changes in arrest rates reflect changes in repeat criminal behavior, the 

pre/post design does not allow us to unequivocally attribute those changes to the Court itself. Statistical 

analyses control for the effects of other factors which may have changed along with Court procedures, but not 

all such factors could be measured. This means that other, unspecified variables besides the Court and other 

variables used in our analyses could account for any prelpost changes. 

Pre-Disposition Arrests. Table 18 shows that, for cases subject to file reviews, there were no differences 

across samples in rates of additional arrests prior to disposition for those released in the pre-disposition period. 

These rates were very high. with an average of around 45% to 50% of released defendants being arrested again 

while on release. CC-only defendants released in the pre-disposition period were somewhat less likely to be 

arrested for a violent felony offense but more likely to be arrested for criminal contempt, compared with FDVC 

cases. There were no differences between the pre and FDVC samples in rate or types of additional predisposition arrests. 

The same hypotheses about the meaning of any changes across sarnples that applied to probation violaTABLE 18. Prevalence of Criminal Recidivism 

Pre FDVC CC-only 

Sample Sample Sample 

1. Pre-Disposition Recidivism Onlya 

Any arrest 

Arrest for a violent felony offense 

Arrest for criminal contempt 

(N = 54) (N = 76) (N = 19) 

43% 51 Yo 47% 

9% 14% 0%' 

7 % 16% 37%* 

2. Recidivism within 1 Year Post-Disposition b*c (N = 71) (N = 167) (N = 69) 

Any arrest 21%' 33% 38% 

Arrest for a violent felony offense 7 % 5 yo 3 % 

Arrest for criminal contempt 6% 8% 25%" 

3. Recidivism within 18 Months Post-Disposition b8c (N = 68) (N = 138) (N = 57) 

Any new arrest 26%' 41 Oh 53% 

Arrest for criminal contempt 9 Yo 1 1 Yo 33%" 

Arrest for a violent felony offense 9% 8% 4% 

+ p < 10 * p < 05 *' p < 01 

Source- New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services 

a This recidivism statistic was only calculated lor cases released at some point during the pre-disposition period. Since release status was 

only known for cases receiving a complete case review, only 149 cases (those which were reviewed and were released prior to 

disposition) could be used in this analysis. This is 65% of the total sample of 229 cases. 

+*' p < 001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

For defendants who are not incarcerated, the recidivism time begins immediately post-disDosition. For defendants sentenced to jail or 

prison, post-disposition time is calculated to begin at their estimated release from incarceration This is to avoid understating recidivism 

among incarcerated defendants See Table 14, footnote c for the methodology used lo estimate the time that defendants with different 

types of sentences were incarcerated Note that these recidivism statistics are only calculated for cases released lor the full recidivism 

period under study (I e , 1 year or 18 months respectively). The cases with defendants still incarcerated as of the analysis are defined as 

missing For the 1-year post-disposition arrest analysis, 70% of all cases (307 of 438) had been released from incarceration for at least a 

year, and so were included in this analysis For the 18-month post-disposition arrest analy:,is, 60% of all cases (263 01 438) were 

included in the analysis 

These analyses include cases not receiving a complete case review, using Criminal histonr and recidivism data from DCJS. See 

Appendix C for a discussion of methods of samplling cases for file review and analyses of sample selection biases. 

Special\zed Felony Dornestlc Violence Courts 69 

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.
To identify factors that best explained pre-disposition repeat arrests, we conducted a number of bivariate 

orrelations and used the significant variables in those analyses as predictors in regression analyses. Table 19 

convictions, which is certainly in keeping with the generally-accepted fact that past lcriminal behavior strongly 

predicts additional criminal behavior, or at least criminal behavior detected by the justice system. Another 

strong predictor was when the victim wanted charges dropped after the indictment. This may suggest that 

when victims do not want charges brought it is because they anticipate additional criminal acts, since we do see 

evidence of repeat criminal behavior when charges are pressed against the victims' wishes. Pre-disposition rearrests were also marginally more likely for CC-only cases (relative to pre cases). and for defendants with prior 

violent felony or criminal contempt convictions. 

ohows that additional arrests prior to disposition were more likely when the defendant had any prior criminal 

~~ ~ 

TABLE 19. Predictors of Pre-Disposition Re-Arrests from Logistic Regressbons 

Predictors Coefficient Standard Error Sig. Level Odds Ratio 

Sample ,171 

FDVC (versus pre) ,664 ,693 ,338 1.943 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 1.1 24' ,651 ,084 3.078 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction ,939' ,528 ,075 2.558 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior criminal conviction ,861 ,423 ,042 2.365 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction .779+ .426 ,067 2.1 79 

Victim attempted to drop charges .8a4* .396 ,026 2.420 

Constant -2.325"' ,746 ,002 ,098 

Nagelkerke R square ,215 

Degrees of freedom 6 

Chi-square * 23.572"' 

Dependent Variable: New arrest between the initial arrest and the case disposition (yesino)? 

Note: N = 134 of 149 possible cases (due to missing data on one or more independent variables for 15 cases). Cases were 

available for the analysis only if the defendant was released at some point during the pre-disposition period. The following variables 

were entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value exceeds ,200): (1) sample type (post versus pre and 

criminal contempt only versus pre), (2) any prior criminal conviction, (3) any prior violent felony offense :onviction, (4) any prior 

criminal contempt conviction. and (5) victim expressed desire to drop charges during initial police interv ew. Of these variables, 

sample type and the three criminal history variables were entered to test hypotheses regarding the impact of these variables. The 

other two variables were added based on significant bivariale correlations. Results are shown for the last step of the regression 

model. 

, . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

D < .10 * D < .05 '' P < .01 '*' P < ,001 

Post-Disposition Arrests. We used the DCJS data to assess post-disposition re-arrests at 12 months and 

18 months. Since some offenders were incarcerated and would not have had the same opportunity to recidivate 

as those not incarcerated, at least while they were in prison or jail, we adjusted the post-disposition period to 

the first 12 and 18 months "on the street." For those not incarcerated, this was the first 12 and 18 months postdisposition. For those incarcerated after disposition, this was the first 12 and 18 months after their estimated 

release date. It is important to note that only those assumed to be at liberty for the full 12 and 18 months were 

included in these analyses. At 12 months, we included 70% of the full population of 438 cases, and at 18 

months we included 60% of the full population. This means that these analyses are restricted to those who 

were not incarcerated or were incarcerated for shorter periods, and may very well not be generalizable to those 

incarcerated for longer terms. The pre-sample may include more cases that were incarcerated for longer 

periods. since they had more time to have served their sentence and then be released for the requisite period. 

With this caution in mind, Table 18 shows that post-disposition arrest rates were higher for FDVCcontempt. By 18 months post-disposition or post-release, about one-quarter of the pre sample but nearly half 

the FnVC-processed samples had been arrested again. One-third of the CC-only sample was again arrested for 

@processed cases than for pre cases, and CC-only cases were particularly likely to be re-arrested for criminal 

70 Specialized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
criminal contempt, compared with about 10% of the pre and FDVC samples. These findings may suggest that 

defendants adjudicated by the FDVC were more likely to commit additional crimes and be arrested for them, or 

that they were simply more likely to be arrested, since we do not have reliable data on crimes actually committed. If their actual rate of committing crimes increased, the pre/post design used in this study does not allow us 

to determine whether this change would be due to the Court or to any of a number of other factors which may 

have changed in Kings County over the period of time under study. 

factors predict additional arrests and the amount of time that elapsed from case disposition/release to first new 

arrest (see Table 20). We conducted analyses separately for the sample of cases subject to file reviews (to 

include predictors only available from file reviews), and for the full population of eligible cases (which is 

restricted to data obtained from DCJS but includes many more cases). Each analysis was further performed 

separately for the first year after disposition or release, and for the first 18 months after disposition or release. 

Across all four analyses, the strongest predictor was prior convictions for criminal contempt, such that those 

with such convictions were more likely to have a new arrest within the time frame, and have it more quickly. 

Other significant predictors were defendant's age (such that younger defendants were more likely to have 

repeat arrests and have them more quickly) and prior violent felony offense convictions (such that those with 

such convictions were more likely to have a re-arrest within 18 months, and for the arrest to occur sooner). 

Marginally significant predictors included conviction for a violent felony offense in the case under study (in 

which those cases were less likely to be re-arrested, and the repeat arrest occurs later), and adjudication by the 

specialized Court (when not restricting analyses to the sample of reviewed cases, these cases were more likely 

to be re-arrested and to be arrested again more quickly, within an 18-month timeframe) than the pre sample 

cases). Except for the last marginally significant result, type of court did not predict repeat arrests within the 

first 18 months after disposition or release from incarceration. 

We again conducted regression analyses. guided by results from b [variate correlations, to identify what 

TABLE 20. Cox Regressions on Post-Disposition Repeat Arrests 

20A. Cox Regression Predicting Days To First New Arrest Within One Year Post-Disposition Or 

Post-Releasea 

.............. .... - ................................................ ............................................. .. 

(Time variable: days to first arrest within one year; Status variable: new arrest within one year?) 

Predictors Coefficient Std. Error Sig. Level Odds Rafio 

Model (1) Cases with complete case review (N = 163)b 

Prior criminal history 

Defendant age -.040' .O'I 9 ,038 .961 

Defendant employed at time of initial arrest -.476 .3'17 .134 ,622 

Current conviction for a violent felony offense -.562 .4'17 ,177 .570 

Chi-square 25.395"' 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction i.o5a*** .3'17 ,001 2.881 

............................................................................... ....................................................................................... Degrees of freedom 4 

Model (2) All cases (independent variables only entered if available for cases without case review) (N = 31J4)~ 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 1 230"' 2'3 000 3 421 

Defendant age - 030' 0' 2 01 4 970 

Current conviction for a violent felony offense - 661' 3% 061 516 

Degrees of freedom 3 

Chi-square 49 ai^* 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 7 1 

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.
206. Cox Regression Predicting Days to First New Arrest within Eighteen Months PostDisposition or Post-Releasea 

(Time variable: days to first arrest within 78 months; Status variable: new arrest within 78 months?) 

Predictors Coefficrenf Sfd Error Sig Level Odds Ratio 

Model (1) Cases with complete case review (N = 146)b 

Prior criminal history 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction 540' 325 096 1717 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 1 127"' 301 000 3 088 

Defendant employed at time of initial arrest - 451 301 134 637 

Current conviction for a violent felony offense - 509 391 193 601 

Chi-square 28 395"' 

Degrees of freedom 4 

Model (2) All cases (independent variables only entered if available for cases without case review) (N = 260)b 

,146 

,513' .280 ,066 1.671 

,556' ,318 ,081 1.743 

Sample 

FDVC (versus pre) 

Criminal contempt only (versus pre) 

Any prior conviction 

Any prior violent felony offense conviction 

Any prior criminal contempt conviction 

Defendant age 

Current conviction for a violent felony offense 

Degrees of freedom 

Prior criminal history 

-.337 .247 .173 ,714 

,684" ,244 .C105 1.982 

,251 *** ,213 .CIOO 3.504 

-020' ,012 .ca7 ,980 

-.433 ,320 .177 -649 

Chi-sauare 

7 

65.942"' 

Note: The following independent variables were initially entered using a backward stepwise method (variables removed if p-value 

exceeds ,200) (1) sample type (post versus pre and criminal contempt only versus pre), (2) any prior crirninal conviction, (3) any 

prior violent felony offense, (4) defendant age, (5) defendant employment status at time of initial arrest, (e) prior history of physical 

assault with same victim, and (7) defendant convicted a( a violent felony offense on the initial case. Of these variables, sample type 

and the three criminal history variables were entered to test hypotheses on their impact. The other variables were added based 

on significant bivariate correlations, with either (a) new arrest within one year post-disposition or (b) new 

arrest within eighteen months post-disposition. An exception is that for the models including all cases (wi! h and without complete 

case review), variables (5) and (6) from the above list were excluded. since they were not available for ary cases without case 

review. Results are shown for the last step of the regression model. 

disposition. For incarcerated defendants, post-disposition time is calculated to begin after their estimated release 

from incarceration. This is to avoid underestimating recidivism among incarcerated defendents. See Table 14, 

footnote c for the methodology used to estimate the time that defendants with 

different types of sentences were incarcerated. Note that these recidivism statistics are only calculated fcr cases released 

for the full recidivism period under study (e.g.. 1 year or 18 months respectively). 

" There are 229 total cases with case review. and 438 total cases with or without case review, but lewer cases are available 

for these analyses. First, some cases are missing data on one or more predictor variables. Second, some cases do not have 

enough "at risk" time in the post-disposition period (e.9.. due to receiving a long jail or prison sentence or, the initial case). 

For the analyses of re-arrests in the first year, the sample was reduced from 438 to 307 cases, or 70% of the population. 

For the analyses of re-arrests in the first 18 monthsr, the sample was reduced from 438 to 263 cases, or 60% of the population. 

* o < .10 

For defendants who are not incarcerated following disposition of the target case, the recidivism time begins immediately post- 

* D < .05 ** D < .01 *** o < .001 

We conducted survival analyses to predict patterns in time to first new arrest using groups formed from 

criminal history data, since criminal history was the strongest predictor of repeat arrests. Figure 14 shows that 

the pattern of repeat arrests over time was similar across groups, but arrest rates for those with more serious 

criminal histories rose more rapidly over time than those with less serious histories. Interestingly, those with 

criminal contempt convictions were re-arrested at higher rates than those with violent felony offense convictions in their past. 

72 Speciaiized Feiony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
FIGURE 14. The Impact of Criminal History on Time to First New Arrest: Percentage with One or 

More New Arrests up to 18 Months after Disposition or Release 

100% 

9 0 O/O 

8 0 O/o 

70% 

60% 

5 0 '/o 

4 0 '/o 

30% 

20% 

1 0% 

0 Yo 

- Prior Criminal Contempt and Violent Felony Offense Conviction (N = 22) 

+Prior Criminal Contempt Conviction (N = 75) 

-A- Prior Violent Felony Offense Convlction (N = 34) 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 

Types of Charges in Additional Arrests 

To get a reading of the types of crime for which defendants were re-arrested at any point, we looked at the 

top charge of the first new arrest any time within 30 months of the arrest targeted in our study, for sampled as 

well as non-sampled cases (Table 21). From 40% to 66% of these cases had at least one additional arrest. For 

the re-arrested cases. the pre cases were most likely to be re-arrested for a non-violent felony offense, the 

FDVC cases were most likely to be arrested again for a misdemeanor offense, and the CC-only cases were 

most likely to have a repeat arrest for criminal contempt. There were few differences across samples when 

comparing within types of charges, except that CC-only defendants were less likely than FDVC cases to be 

arrested again for a violent felony offense and more likely to be re-arrested for criminal contempt. 

S,3eoa/!zed Felony Dornestlc Violence Courts 73 

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 21. Top Charge of First New Arrest for Defendants Arrested at any Time within 30 

Months of the Target Domestic Violence Arresta 

Pre 

Sample 

Recidivism Measure (N = 93) 

A) Sampled Defendants Re-Arrested within 

30 Months of their Initial Arrest 

B) Top Charge on First New Arrest 

1. Violent Felony Offense 

Murder 

Assault 

Rape or sexual abuse 

Robbery 

Criminal possession of a weapon 

Witness tampering or intimidation 

2. Criminal Contempt 

3. Other Felony Offenses 

Property (burglary, robbery, larceny, or theft) 

Drug sales or possession 

Reckless endangerment / child endangerment 

Other (criminal mischief, criminal 

impersonation, bail jumping, or escape) 

4. Misdemeanor Offenses 

Drug possession 

Assault 

Property (petit larceny or criminal possession) 

Aggravated harassment 

Criminal mischief, trespass, or loitering 

Menacing / Hazing 

Resisting arrest 

Misdemeanor (type unknown) 

Total 

Unknown /Missing Top Charge Data 

37 defendants 

(40% of sample) 

(N = 37) 

4 (1 1.4%) 

___ 

1 (2.9%) 

-_- 

2 (5.7%) 

1 (2.9%) 

1 (2.9%) 

5 (74.3%) 

14 (40.0%) 

6 (17.1%) 

3 (8.6%) 

--- 

4 (I 1.4%) 

12 (34.3%) 

1 (2.9%) 

5 (14.3%) 

2 (5.7%) 

2 (5.7%) 

1 (2.9%) 

-_- 

1 (2.9%) 

___ 

35 

2 cases 

FDVC 

Sample 

(N = 253) - 

139 defendanis 

(55% of sampk) 

(N= 139) 

28 (20.4%) 

1 (0.7%) 

15 (10.9%)' 

4 (2.9%) 

2 (1.5%) 

6 (4.4%) 

4 (2.9%) 

37 (22.6%) 

35 (25.5%) 

13 (9.5%) 

13 (9.5%) 

1 (0.7%) 

4 (2.9%) 

43 (31.4%) 

12 (8.8%) 

7 (5.1%) 

5 (3.6%) 

9 (6.6%)' 

5 (3.6%) 

2 (1.5%) 

3 (2.2%) 

--- 

137 

2 cases 

CC-only 

Sample 

(N = 92) 

61 defendants 

(66% of sample) 

(N = 61) 

4 (6.8%)" 

.__ 

2 (3.4%)' 

___ 

___ 

2 (3.4%) 

1 (1.7%) 

28 (47.5%)"' 

11 (18.6%) 

4 (6.8%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

16 (27.1%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

2 (3.4%) 

1 (1.7%) 

3 (5.1%) 

2 (3.4%) 

59 

2 cases 

+ p < .io * p < .05 ** p c.01 **lf p < .001 (2-tailed t-test / Comparison is always with the post-FDVC samiile (middle column)) 

Source: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. 

a These analyses include cases not receiving a ComDlete case review. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A total of 136 cases (including 27 cases in which a felony protection-order violation was the only felony 

indictment charge) adjudicated by the FDVC in an early period was compared with a sample of 93 cases 

handled by general felony court parts in the 18 months before the specialized Court vias established. Our 

findings indicate that the use of this court model has made a difference in several key areas: 

0 The District Attorney's Office is more likely to indict cases with less severe police charges in order to 

bring the enhanced defendant monitoring and victim services resources to these cases. In addition, a 

new state law implemented shortly after the start of the Court resulted in marly protection order viola- 

@ 

74 Specialized Felony Domestic Vioience Courts 

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.
tion cases being prosecuted as felonies, which would previously have been misdemeanors. These 

changes in law and practice mean that cases processed by the FDVC were as a group more heterogeneous than the pre-Court cases on severity of the criminal incident (even when the protection order 

violations here considered separately). 

0 Victim services are clearly expanded under the specialized Co~irt, in that all victims are assigned an 

advocate and receive a protection order during case processing (and often afterwards as well). Unfortunately data describing the nature or impact of advocacy services received were not available. 

0 Judicial monitoring of defendant compliance could not be documented because information differentiating status appearances from other types of court appearances was not available from file reviews, 

either pre-disposition or post-disposition. Pre-disposition release was used somewhat more often in 

FDVC cases, and released FDVC defendants were more likely to be ordered to batterers' intervention 

programs while on release. Many defendants were re-jailed for infractions of release conditions, no 

matter which court handled their case. 

0 The specialized Court spent slightly more time, on average, processing cases from felony arraignment to 

disposition. However, the seventy of indictment charges and defendants who were released and remanded for infractions better predicted increased processing time. It is very difficult but important to 

strike a balance between the need to give these complex and intractable cases the time and attention they 

require, the need to provide speedy justice, and the various pros and cons of pre-disposition release. 

0 Conviction rates did not change under the specialized Court, but methods of reaching disposition did. 

Convictions by guilty pleas were more common and trials were less common in FDVC cases. Even 

when accounting for other relevant factors (such as factors relaled to evidence), plea bargaining is 

more likely to result from use of the Court model itself. This represents a cost-savings to the court system. Conviction charges were, on the whole. less severe for FDVC cases than cases processed by 

general felony courts. This"may be a product of the greater use of plea bargaining, and/or the fact that 

less serious cases (based on arrest and indictment charges) are more likely to enter the FDVC than 

were entering felony courts before. 

0 Sentencing practices under the FDVC model were neither more punitive (in terms of incarceration) nor 

more treatment-oriented (with treatment mandates as a condition of the sentence), on the whole, than 

sentencing practices before the Court began. It seems likely that sentencing did not become more punitive because of the broader mix of cases (on arrest charge severity) entering the Court, and/or because of 

the greater use of plea bargaining. Orders to batterer intervention may not have increased in FDVC sentences because these programs were used so much more widely in the pre-disposition period. 

Data on probation violations and arrests for additional incidents' were analyzed. Interpretation of these 

findings is extremely equivocal because of limitations imposed by the reliability of these indicators as 

measures of compliance and recidivism (we were limited to official records of reported allegations, 

which may underestimate or overestimate actual behaviors, and we could not differentiate domestic 

violence from other types of crimes), and because of the pre/post research design. With these warnings 

in mind, our results tentatively suggest that probation violations were reported for about one-third of 

all probationers, and did not change under the new court model. Additional arrests for those released 

prior to disposition were even higher, at nearly half of all released defendants. Rates of pre-disposition 

repeat arrests did not vary by type of court. but post-disposition arrest rates were double for FDVCprocessed cases (about half vs. one-quarter). Higher arrest rates for the FDVC sample may reflect 

higher rates of repeat criminal behavior, or they may be due to the greater likelihood of detection under 

the FDVC model. which enhances monitoring by the Court and uses ISP probation. Very limited data 

were available on the nature of the additional arrest charges, and it was not possible to distinguish domestic violence from other types of criminal incidents. However, cases in the pre sample were most 

often arrested again for non-violent felony offenses, cases in the FDVC sample were most often reSpeciaiized Felony Dornestlc Violence Courts 75 

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.
arrested for misdemeanors. and criminal contempt (protection-order violation) cases were most often 

arrested again for criminal contempt. 

0 Criminal history, especially prior convictions for criminal contempt, emerged as one of the most consistent indicators of how well defendants performed both pre-disposition anti in the post-disposition 

follow-up period. Those with prior criminal convictions, especially for contempt. were less likely to be 

granted pre-disposition release. more likely to be re-jailed for violations when they were released, more 

likely to be convicted in the current case, and more likely to be arrested on new charges in the predisposition and post-disposition follow-up periods. These findings suggest that those with prior convictions, especially for criminal contempt, may need the closest monitoring and supervision by the 

system. 

As the popularity of specialized domestic violence courts grows, additional research should be conducted 

to document how the approach grows and evaluate its impact. Further research could benefit from several 

lessons learned in this study: 

0 This study began two years after the specialized Court started. An evaluation component should be 

planned when a new court is being planned, so that evaluation can occur prciactively rather than retroactively. This would allow evaluators to develop research materials with which to evaluate the model 

more thoroughly. In this study. for example, it was not possible to fully document the implementation 

of defendant monitoring techniques because sufficiently detailed information was not contained in case 

files, and our samples consisted of cases already processed and closed. 

0 Since domestic violence is such a notoriously chronic crime and victim safety is a critical concern, 

evaluators must address the question of recidivism. It is important to use the most reliable measures of 

recidivism, going beyond incidents which were reported to and acted upon by the authorities. Interviews with victims are the best way to measure repeat domestic violence (at least against that identified 

victim), both reported and unreported, for which arrests were and were not made. Resources for this 

critical step were not available here, but should be prioritized for future research efforts. 

@ 

76 Specialized felony Dornestjc Violence Courts 

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.
Ref ere nces 

Bennett, Larry and Marie Lawson. 1994. “Barriers to Cooperation Between Domestic-Violence and Substance-Abuse 

Programs.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, May, 277-286. 

Buzawa, Eve and Carl Buzawa. 1990. Domestic Violence: The Criminal JiLstke Response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Davis, Robert, Barbara Smith. and Laura Nickles. 1997. Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases with Reluctant Victims: 

Assessing Two Novel Approaches in Milwaukee. Report to the National Institute of Justice, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section/Fund for Justice and Evaluation, Washington, D.C. 

Ford, David. 1991. “Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource: A Note on Empowering Women in Violence Conjugal 

Relationships.’’ Lnw and Society Review 25: 313-334. 

Gamache. Denise, Jeffrey Edleson, and M.D. Schock. 1988. “Coordinated Police, Judicial, and Social Service Response 

to Woman Battering: A Multi-Baseline Evaluation Across Three Communities.” Chapter in Hotaling, Gerald, David 

Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick, and Murray Straus. Coping with Family Violence: Research and Policy Perspectives. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Garner. Joel and Jeffrey Fagan. (1997). “Victims of Domestic Violence.” Chapter in Davis, Robert, Arthur Lurigio, and 

Wesley Skogan, Victims of Crime, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: ,Sage. 

Goldkamp, John S. et al. (1996). The Role of Drug arid Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: Dade 

County’s Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute. 

Gondolf, Edward. (1997). “Batterer Programs: What We Know and Need to Know.” Joitrnal of Interpersonal Violence 

12: 83-98. 

Hamberger, L.K. and J.E. Hastings. 1990. “Characteristics of Spouse Abusers Predictors of Treatment Acceptance.” 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence I: 363-373. 

Harrell, Adele. 199 1. Evaluation of Court-Ordered Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders: Final Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Harrell, Adele. Barbara Smith, and Lisa Newmark. 1993. Court Processing arid the Effects of Restraining Orders for 

Domestic Violence Victims: Final Report to the Stute Justice Institute. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Hart. Barbara. (1995). Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence. Paper presented at the Strategic 

Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women. National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

Hart, Barbara. (1996). “Battered Women and the Criminal Justice System.” Chapter in Buzawa, Eve and Carl Buzawa, 

Do Arrests ond Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Hofford, Meredith. (1991). “Family Violence: Challenging Cases for Probatioi Officers.” Federal Probation 55: 12-17. 

Hofford, Meredith and Adele Harrell. ( 1993). Farnily Violence: Iriterverztmis,bbr the Justice System. Bureau of Justice 

Assistance Program Brief, No. NCJ144532. 

Keilitz, Susan. (1997). Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 

Littel. Kristin, with Alexandra Walker, and Deborah Tucker. (1997). Promising Practices Initiative: Report on the Expert 

Panels on Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking. Washington, D.C.: STOP Violence Against Women 

Grants Technical Assistance Project. 

Sp(?ciaiized Felony Dornestrc Violence Courts 77 

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.
National Center for State Courts (2000). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: A 

National Survey. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice’s Research Conference on Violence Against @ Women and Family Violence, October 2000, Washington, DC. 

Rebovich, Donald. (1996). “Prosecution Response to Domestic Violence: Results of a Surkey of Large Jurisdictions.” 

Chapter in Buzawa, Eve and Carl Buzawa, Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Tolman, Richard and Arlene Weisz. ( 1995). “Coordinated Community Intervention for Domestic Violence: The Effects 

of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Woman Abuse Perpetrators.” Crime and Delinquency, 41, 481-495. 

78 Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Appendix A: e 

Technology Application Documents: 

Court-Partner Link Schematic, Summary 

of Modules, and Sample Screens 

Speciaiized feiony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Application Overview: Court - Partner Link 

Users access 

centralized Application 

a 

Data stored in 

centralized database 

Domestic 

Violence 

v 

To enter case 

initialization, court 

appearance, 

conditions, sentences, 

orders of protection 

To receive partner 

information 

I 

To access appropriate 

court information 

To enter program 

com pi ia nce, 

Probation, rearrest, 

victim safety 

- info rm a t i on 

I 

Advocates Attorney 

PARTNERS 

Programs Pro bat ion 

I 

Department 

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.
k 

Cornprchcnsrvc DatakJsc Revicu. 

the daily court calendar 

View daily calendar 

Today's 

Sori to other date 

Search for individual defendants 

Print Daily Calendar 

View of screen calendar 

Compleied calendar for CRIMS enrry 

munary Screen 

Case Information 

Appearance History 

Defendant Information 

Family Profile 

Case Contact List 

Program Compliance 

Order of Protection Compliance 

Electronic Rap Sheet 

curfew 

rk's Worksheet 

ord Appearance Disposition 

Record Case Mandate 

Order of Protection (see below) 

Place holders for other forms 

:s Interface (Judge, Clerk, and Resource Coordinator) 

Summary Screen 

Attendance Sheet 

Victim Repon 

cr Defendant Information 

Iefendant Interview 

:riminal History Check (exisrs in clienVserver) 

amily Assessment 

)anger Assessment 

3efendant to Prograrn(s) 

rogram Rolodex with search functions 

cfendant Contract 

Digital Signature 

Print form 

Program Compliance Information 

"client list" w/ soning - nonficxion 

e 

icrvention Programs 

Schedule Intake Dare 

Schedule program appearance dates 

Page 1 of 2 

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.
Enrer and vie\\ compliance by single defendan1 

Enter and view compliance by session (dale-rime) 

Schedule Intake Date 

Enter and view compliance by single defcndant 

Notify court of abscondance 

Social Service Programs 

Enrer and View Orders of Protection 

Information Shcct 

Actual Order 

Enter an addendum to an order 

View summary version (terms and conditions) 

View full order 

Save but not execute order 

Execute order 

Use Digital Signature 

Print New Order 

Immediate multiple copies 

Reprint at a later date 

:ommunicate with the Office of Probation 

"Client" list of probationers 

Notify Probation of a new defendant under their supervision 

Notify Probation of a request for a PSI 

Rcceive notification from Probation that a PSI has been completed 

Enter a probation report 

a completed probation repon 

functionality 

icrim Report 

Enter repon (DA+VS+NYPD) 

View completed reports 

Notify COU~ personnel of new report 

Management of new report 

Print functionality 

jministrative lnterface 

Edi1 Users 

User/ Panner Rolodex 

aphic Design and Amvork 

Iduce Court Forms 

Entry forms 

View Full form 

Prinr Full form 

:ry Domesric Violence Registry 

Resource Coordlnaror querles and pares down oprions 

lu@iews best oprion(s) and pares down if necessary 

:ironic Cornplainrs 

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.
Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Court Calendar 

Court Calendar for Thursday, June 0 1, 2000 

,, 

-q JUSTICE: Peterson PART: BDVC I1 

Indictment S&G Defendant I' Top Charge 

CRIM USE ACCESS DEVICE-2ND 

I CRIM USE ACCESS DEVICE-2ND 

I -5 1.1 9187-99 

- 2./ 58962-99 168 1 Teacher James 

3, 47s,t2nc1~ 1 107 Dalf , Karam 

4' 6126-2000 1 61 , Frenkel 

171 ,/ Perez, Carlos 

PL 190 .75 .o 

CRIM CONTEMPT-1ST WEAPON 

PL 215 .51 .B1 

A SLT W/I NT : P HY I141 U!/ vV E AP 

1% 

I 

I 

- 

I 

Vdilliam 1 I PL 120 .5 .2 

I Search for Defendant 

Sentencing 

Y DRAFT - SIU a 

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.
Calendar Screen - Resource Coordinator 

ate and Time 

- 1 124123412 

Court Calendar for- Wednesday, Septer-nbet- 20, 2000 

JUSTICE: Petetsnn PART: BCWC I 

ISeptember_L( Change 1 

Violation Program *ppearance RCJ Report 

Compliance Indictment SBr Top Charge 

Filed TY Pe 

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.
Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen I'rints 

Judge's Summary Page 

la http.//207 29 85 252/common/worksheet~framer asp~case~1d=612%20%20%20%20%20%20%2O&iid=325 ~~..__ .",,I.._. , - - ,,, %. - 

lEFENDANT SUPlClARY 

=a 

Top Charge: ASLT bV/IlrlT:PHY IN3 W/WEAF 120 .5 -2 

Adjourned Date/Part: 6/1/00, BDVC I1 

Sentencing Date: 6/1/00 

PROBWM COMPLIANCE 

Date Attend Program 

5/2 2/00 e NYCAAF 

5/1 woo e NYCAAF 

4/26/00 e r4Y c A A P 

4r'12/00 * blY C A AP 

CASE CONTACTS 

Probation Officer: Brian Wynne (718)590-7450 

District Attny: Scott Tiger (212)787-0996 

Victim Advocate: Hall Brown (212)098-9876 

Defense Attny: Richard Johannson 718-992-8355 

PAHXLY PROPILI 

Advocate Judge 

Relationship to victim: spouse spouse 

No Living together during 

incident? Yes 

Children in common: 2 2 

Oth'er children of victim: 0 0 

No IJo Information 

No Information blo Information 

Family Court case 

pending, 

Family Court order in 

effect7 

ORDERS OP PROTLCTXON 

Active Order ' 67 Issue Date: 6/6/00 Expiration 9/6/00 # 

Parties Mary Frenkel 

APPEARANCR IIISIORY 

Date Court Part Status Disposition Adjourned Reason 

6/1/00 BDVC I1 Defend ant incavcera te d with 5 ame bail con diticjn s ADJOIJRNED DA Request 

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.
.* 

Domestic Violence Anplication - Prototype Screen Prints 

Judge's Worksheet and Case Review 

. .. 

-. 

I Address la http //207 29 85 252/common/worksheet~f1amer asp~case~id=612%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&1id=325 1; 

Judge WORKSHEET 

Calendar 

S u m ni a r y 

Court Notes 

Family Profile 

Case Contact2 

Amcarance History 

Lntcr Anmrqq 

Charae History 

€ntw Naw Chhtae 

DlsDOac UlChnrua 

Conidia nce History 

Sctiaduls Otfardanl 

enter tomllanca 

Enter New Case 

;dew Furins 

Form Hlstorv 

Search DV Recllstry 

Loq out 

Panclina OP 

NEXTCOURTAPPEARANCE 

Court Part: Type. Rt?:z::, I Judge 

COURT APPEARANCE HISTORY 

DRAFT - 5/0 

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.
u .- 

Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Clerk Worksheet and Sentencing Form 

---- -- --- I Jle Edit -YkW Go Fdvoiiler . 1 

1 hdaess la http://207.29 85.252/common/workshee~ framer am?, ~ 

Court Clerk 

WORKSHEET 

C a I e n d a r 

Summary 

fi D D e a ra n ce History 

Enter Awartwce 

tntrr Or - 

Pmdlng OP 

Charae History 

Entar New ckatp~ 

Mawee of Chsraa 

ComDlience History 

Inter Condltlonr 

SdlWUIQ Oi&dlUMt 

mtsr Comullmcq 

___ Court Notes 

Search DY Resistry 

New Forms 

Form History 

Lo4 Ollt 

, 

SENTENCE 

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.
. 

Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Court Clerk Worksheet and the Order of Protection Entering Process 

Calendar 

Summary 

LbPearance History 

Cn tcr fippt8rnna v 

Pcndlnp OP 

Charae History 

oiroora or charga 

Enter Sentence 

Family Profile 

Enter NEW Case 

FnIw Nmv Chsraa 

i Order# 

69 Date of Liuanre 

Case Contacts 8 

Compliance History 1 

i Enter Ccndltlonr I 

z-haiuia Ocmaant 

mter Cornrrlloncq I 

*I Court Notes 

Search DV Reaistry 

New Forms 

Form History I 

I 

I 

Lout i 

i 

I Matthew DEmic 

DR4FT - 5/00. 

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.
Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Schedule a Defendant with a Service Provider 

Special Condition: Batterer Program 

I 1 Program Option:: NYCAAP 

I 

I 1 

1 

i 

I 

i 

- i 

i I 

// 

4 I AFSiQn Intake Date: 1- -- I-- -. 

- Service Type: batterer intervention prog 

! 

i 

I I 

1 Session: Tuesday '1 Hour: 5:30PM 

1 Duration, 26 #weeks I .. - .. I Notes: -- -- - 

i Pt ogr am Options: I Choose a program 

I 

I Assign Intake Date: 1-1 

Set vice Type: I Choose a selvlce type 

Requirements: 1-1 Completton Date: [I 

rr .. 

DRAFT - 510 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.
*t 

Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Enter Compliance Information 

.- 

Court Clerk 

WORK SHEET 

Calendar 

Sum ma ry 

Aaaearance H istory 

Charae History 

01a~a4 orauQe 

Enter Sentence 

Family Profile 

Enter New Case 

Case Contacts 

Camp lia nce Hi story 

Gal- New Chrue 

Entff Cortdltlonq 

SClledule DMendsnt 

Pnta Cornpllsncq 

Court Notes 

Search DV REQistry 

New Forms 

Form History 

Loq out 

. -. -- -- . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . -_ -. . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . 

P ro gram Choose a program 

Proqram 

, Attendance Report for 15/30/2000 

._ 

-. 

m The defendant is in compliance with the program directives: 

kJ Notes 

I 

;! 

!, 

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.
Enter Compliance Report Screen 

P 1-0 CJ r a ti1 IAlternatives To Violence Program (AT") 

Attendance Report for 

T h e d e fe n d a n t I 5 i rl c om p I I art I: e 'vv I t 1-1 t h e p rc) CJ r-a rn d I re c ti v e s : 

ed session on 6/30/00 

Submit I Refresh. 1 

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.
Compliance Screen 1 

Defendant Nan-re: John K 'Young NYSID#: 124123412 indictnw n t # : 2 9 1 4 - 2 13 0 11 

ATTEND A NC E HISTORY Enter New C 13 r~ip Ii a n c e 

Number Number not 

Compliant Coni p li a tit Status 

nce Program Name Mandate 

.5 :3 

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.
r---- 

DATE 

-Compliance Screen 2 

Client did nut attend 8/22 session. He ha5 now missed 3 sessions and 11a: been 

dtoppad friartit the ptoyrarri fot not cornplying with attendance rules cb 1~35 sduised 

by the judge and the program not to miss any rr~clre ptogrsm~ on his last court 

dste and 'was then absent that same week. Co~rt cjlled and eApedited ne.t 

jpp e arance I 

fi Ite rnati Y e s To 

L i o I ~r n ce 

program (A,-,J:, 

__ ---- - ~ - .__ -_I_--______ 1 _I --_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.
Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Defendant Compliance History 

AlTENDANCE HISTORY Enter New Compliance 

ge program status. __ 

Complaint , Status 1 Appearance Reason , compliant Name 

I 

I 

I 1 j 

_I I 

I I 6/6/2000 11 Batterer 

I! Program : NYCAAP I1 1- 

- 

DRAFT - 5/0 

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.
Domestic Violence Application - Prototype Screen Prints 

Victim Advocate's Workslieet and Case Contacts 

, Victim Advocates 

WORKSHEET 

Calendar 

3umrnary 

50ut-t Notes 

Charae History 

Famllv Profllp 

Create Vlctim 

Violatlo~s~Vlolatto~ 

Ret10i-t 

ComDllance H Istory 

Fase Contact2 

Form History - 

hau 

EDIT CASE CONTACT LIST 

!.. ...... - - . ,,...,.. . -. .... ....... .._. . . ._ ... 

Current 

11 (212)787-0996 

I. ._ 

718-992-8355 

Legal Aid Society ! 2; Richard 1 Defense Attorney: IC 

f 

.. ............ ___ .... - . ... ._ ......................... 

Change To 

Sr-utt Tiger ._ 

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.
Victim Advocate Report 

Defendant Name: John K. Young NYSID#: 124123412 indictnien t # : 2 "I I 4 - 2 0 CI o 

VICTIM ADVOCATES REPORT 

.. . , . ' . . . ..... .. ... ..... L,' 

S t e pha r-ti E: SI o a n 

L' 5 

appearance? 

C',?r t-1 as be err re c e i v i n g ti a ra s s i rlg p t-1 u 1-1 P 

calls at home. C.'& states that s13t-neot-le 

is paging random people and etiterincj the 

CWs home phone number to CJII hack, 

These calls corne at 12arri atid 13rr1, 

Suspects that it is the defendat-It. Finds 

it .~larming and annoying, 

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.
Order of Protection 

Addess http /I207 29 85 252/common/woiksheet~f1amer asp~case~1d=384%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&11d=139 rl 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.
Order of Protection 

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.
Order of Protection - Electronic Signature 

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.
Appendix B: a 

Media Articles on the Court 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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.
DomesticViolence 

Promoting greater protection for victims of 

domestic violence and strict judicial 

monitoring of defendants Winter 1999-2000 

New court 

model 

gross NY 

“THE NEW YORK 

DOMESTlC 

VIOLENCE 

COURT MODEL 

REPRESENTS A 

NEW WAY 

OF HANDLING 

SOME OF 

THE MOST 

DIFFICULT 

CASES .” 

- NEWYORK STATE 

CHIEF JUDGE 

JUDITH S. KAYE 

ew York is actively 

developing domestic 

violence courts across 

the state. Four jurisdictions now have specialized 

criminal courts that handle only 

domestic violence cases. 

New York’s first domestic violence 

court opened in Brooklyn in 1996. A second one followed in the Bronx 

Misdemeanor Criminal Court two years 

later, and three more opened in 

Westchester County, Buffalo and the 

Bronx Supreme Court in 1999. All the 

courts place a top priority on victim safety and strict judicial monitoring of defendants. 

“The New York domestic violence 

court model represents a new way of handling some of the most difficult cases,” 

said New York State Chief Judge Judith 

S. Kaye. “Judges are helping lead a coordinated response that is so essential to 

addressing domestic violence crime.” 

Strict judicial monitoring 

Through a network of partnerships 

with criminal justice agencies and community-based social services, the specialized courts respond quickly and comprehensively to charges of domestic violence. 

The model features dedicated judges 

who ensure strict judicial monitoring of 

defendants; resource coordinators who 

help judges get information from batterers’ programs, the Department of 

Probation and other agencies; and on-site 

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye talks with Judge 

Daniel Arigiolillo at the opening of the 

Westchester Domestic Violence Court 

victim advocates who help victims obtain 

needed services. 

lmpressiive results 

New Yoi-k’s domestic violence courts 

have improved compliance rates of 

defendants released on bail or probation, 

increased victim access to services 

through the use of victim advocates, and 

significantly reduced dismissal rates. 

Queens, Suffolk County and regions of 

upstate Ncw York may set up similar 

courts in the near future. 

“We are commir,d to seeing an expansion of these courts around the state,” said 

New York State Chief Administrative 

Judge Jonathan Lippman. 

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.
View 

from the 

Bench 

“I THINK 

WE’VE ESTABLISHED 

THAT SPECIALIZED 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

COURTS WORK .” 

- JUDGE 

MATTHEW D’EMIC 

udge John Leventhal has 

2 presided over the Brooklyn 

~4 Domestic Violence Court since 

its inception in 1996. Judge Matthew 

D’Emic joined him in 1998 when the 

Court expanded. The two of them 

recently discussed their experiences. 

i 

$1 

Q: M’hat is unique about a domestic vioD’Emic: Its philosophy of intense judicial 

lence court? 

monitoring and supervision. We bring back 

defendants every two or three weeks who 

make bail. We also monitor probationers and 

have them come back every couple of months 

to make sure that they’re in compliance. They 

know they’re accountable. 

Leventhal: In addition to the monitoring, what 

really sets our courts apart is a tremendous partnership among a lot of agencies and groups. 

Q: What is the biggest challenge you face 

Leventhal: As a judge, you have a keen 

in a domestic violence court? 

responsibility not only to defendants in assuring that justice is done, but also to complainants to ensure that they remain safe. 

Q: What is the future of domestic violence courts? 

Leventhal: These courts are getting the 

word out that domestic violence is not tolerated, not only in society but also by the cnminal justice system. 

D’Emic: New York has shown that courts 

can be more active in domestic violence 

cases, ’They have contributed to the safety of 

victim!; and their families, an4 in a societal 

way, created more public confidence. I think 

we’ve #established that specialized domestic 

violence courts work and I would expect to 

see others adopt what we’ve done. 

The Bronx focuses on domestic violence awareness 

a ver 100 social service providers, police 

aid parole officers, victim advocates and 

other court partners crowded into a courtroom at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court to commemorate Domestic 

Violence Awareness Month. 

Bronx Criminal Court Supervising Judge 

Rosalyn Richter called the Court, which has 

led the way in combating misdemeanor 

domestic violence offenses, a “tremendous 

success.” Bronx Borough President 

......................................................... 

New YorkDomesticViolenceCcllrts 

351 West 54th Street 

New York, NY 10019 

21 2-373-8085 

,..# 

Fernando Ferrer recognized it as a “national 

model for urban solutions.” A representative 

from Bell Atlantic was also on hand to 

donate I00 phones to Victim Services, a 

victims’ advocacy group. The phones are 

programmed to dial 9-1-1 and allow victims 

of domestic violence to contact the police in 

case of an emergency. 

Since June 1998, the Bronx Misdemeanor 

Domestic Violence Court has handled misdemeanor cases of domestic violence 

through a collaboration between the Court. 

Victim Services, social service providers, 

the Police Department, the Bronx District 

Attorney’s office and the Department of 

Probation. 

At the October event, Judge Diane Kiesel, 

who presides over one of three parts within 

the Domestic Violence Court, praised the 

successes of the Court. “This project is 

addressing the problem of domestic violence in an innovative and creative way.” 

..................................................................................................................... 

Non-Profit 

Organization 

U.S. Postage Paid 

New York, NY 

Permit No. 4317 

- Requested 

Fund for the 

City of New York 

VIS IT US L,T W L’4bS. C C I: f? TI N fd OVATI 3N .CRG 

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.
National Bulletin on 

OOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

-PREVENTION 

Vol. 5, No. 9 www.dvponline.com September 1999 

A court grows in Brooklyn: 

Dedicated domestic violence court serves as national model 

ly Susan R Paimer 

Ask any domestic violence advocate where the biggest probllm in the criminal justice system sdl resides, and that person will most likely say: judges. But 

there is light at the end of this tunnel. Welcome to the Supreme Court of the 

State of New York, Second Judual Dismct In other words, welcclme to Brooklyn. 

Here, since 1996, Judge Joh Levanthal has been presiding over a domestic violence court that processes between 80 to 100 felony cases a year. In fact, work 

with a dedicated prosecution unit, Judge Levanthal’s court became so busy that 

another judge, Matthew D’Emic, started a second part (“part” is the New York 

word for courtroom) in April 1998. These parts, the brainchild of the chief 

judge of the Court of Appeals and Brooklyn’s Dismct Attorney, have two other 

judges who handle only domestic violence cases: one who manages the calendar, 

and a retired judge who tracks monitoring and follow-up of at)users. 

So what makes this court different? Accordmg to Judge Lev;mthal, the court 

relies on a “terrific” partnership with such agencies and organuaiions as the New 

York Police Depamnent, Victim Services (a nonprofit advoc;q agency), the 

probation deparunenq intervention and alternative treatment pIograms managers, and the defense bar. 

It also relies on intense judiud monitoring and supervision. ‘7 see defendants 

every two to three weeks just to let them know the COW is watching them,” 

Levanthal says. 

We there are sdar dedicated courts sprinkled throughout the counq, the 

judge points out that hs court deals only with felonies, so charges are much more 

sexious - running from contempt to kidnapping to murder. Phis, he notes thal 

legislators have elevated certain actions from misdemeanors to fdonies. If someone violates a court order and harassment is involved, if someone commits 

certain types of menacing or s-g, and if someone with a co~wicdon violates 

a court order within five years, all those people will come before his CVXC. 

1 

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 seed is planted 

Why did the New York Court of Appeals implement this radmlly dfferent 

court? “Long ago, not ody were the police less sensitive,” saps Levanthal, ‘%ut so 

was society, and that was wrong . . .Judges were mirroring societf:j perception 

of domestic violence; now we [in New York] are taking a leadershp role.” This 

leadership role was cemented in November 1997 when a conference of nine 

northeastern states met in Albany, N.Y., and cited the court as a model. And, as a 

model, it has a steady sueam of interested observers including a Chicago judge; 

prosecutors from Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Sew Orleans, and San Diego; and 

judges from China and Italy. 

Before these parts existed, domestic violence cases would go wherever there 

was space on a court calendar. Kow, placing them in courtrooms tdedxated to 

domestic violence lets the judges and all parddpating agencies coordmate their 

resources and programs. ‘We’re not sod services - we send people to jail for 

serious offenses,” says Levanthal, “but if it’s not a crime of violence and does 

involve an alcohol or drug problem, for example, we send people to programs 

as part of a split sentence, such as six months in jail and treatment’‘ 

Success 

One of the questions often asked of a pilot or new program is: Does it work? 

Levanthal reports that since his part began three years ago, the prob:ition department found that its violation-of-probation rate for domestic violrace cases is 

half the regular rate, “and these are usually the more risky types of cases,’’ he 

added. The judge attdbutes this success to monitoriag, calling it “very, very imp~rtant.” 

‘?t reinforces to the defendants that they have to make an effort to the court,” 

Levanthal says. He says that in his courtroom, he emphasizes to the abusers that it 

is the state prosecuting them, not their partners: “I tell them that the order of 

protemon is ng order, and J remind them that the name of the case is the State of 

New York vs. Mr. Smith, not Mn. Smith vs. Mr. Smith.” 

While these Brooklyn parts stand out, the judge insists that he is not alone in his 

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.
effons. He met recently with 60 other judges from across rhe country at a spposium sponsored by the Violence Against Women Office. “AS a domestic violence judge,” he says, “I see my role as a dual obligation: to preserve and protect 

a defendant’s constitutional and procedural rights, but also to see that the cornplainant is safe both during the proceedings and after as wrlLy’ 

The judge originally got involved for a very simple reason: Someone asked 

him. “I had some hesitation,” he reveals, ‘“Decause it came in the aftermath of a 

very celebrated case in New York and the OJ. Simpson cas’e, but here I had an 

oppormnity to make a difference, to start somethLng born scratch. Now I have 

an opportunity to do some good.” 

Stlsan R Paisner is a Mapbnnd m‘minoIogz>t and tvn’ter 

in domes& noience issues. 

more than 2Oyeors’ eqerience 

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 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 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 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 NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, JUNE 28,1998 

Bv AMY WALDMAN 

HE small lobby of 362 Sutter'Avenue In Brownsvllle Is so busy wlth 

the trafflc of dally Ilk that It seems lmposslble that a murder could T occur there, certalnly not In broad daylight. It Is a place where adults 

collect mall and children collect frlends. A glass wall separates the 

lobby from a leafy courtyard where many people who llve In the Van Dyke 

Houses pass afternoons. 

Yet Just after 5 P.M. on a Frlday afternoon two months ago. prosecutors 

say. Samuel Tolllver,,used a tree limb to bludgeon his Ilve-In glrlfrlend of 10 

years, Karan Brown Chambers, to death there. Mr. Tolllver had Just been 

released from jail, where he had served part of a 60-day sentence for 

assaultlng Ms. Chambers. He was under a court order to stay away from her 

for three years. Instead, wlthln three days, he returned to where they had 

Ilved, asking her to fetch him shirts. She did. They fought. Accordlng to 

prosecutors, he slammed her repeatedly In the head wlth the branch. Her 

screams echoed Into tle courtyard. She bled from the head on the tlle floor. 

Perhaps It happened too fast for anyone to do anythlng. Perhaps 

resldents were scared of Mr. Tolllver. whom they call n boozlng, broodink 

man. Or perhaps, says Sandra Bryant, Ms. Chambers's neighbor and friend. 

people were used to seelng them fight. "If they always see hlm beatlng her up, 

he's Just going to beat her up," Ms,, Bryant said. "They fight today 

Striking Back 

SNAPSHOT _____._ . 1%. 

Violence on View 

The Police Department began comprehensively tracking dornestlc 

vlolenca slatisllcs In 1995 

POLICE DOMESTIC INCIDENT REPORTS 

1997 251.983 1996 244,105 1995 Not available . 

FAMILY-RELATED ARRESTS 

1997 27.085 1996 22,973 1995 20,793 

1997 10,600 1996 7,530 1995 Nolavallable 

POLICE HOME VISITS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH HISTORIES OF ABUSE 

thelr abusers or lnvlte them back. 

But In New York that response Is changlng drarnatlcally. Once, accused 

abusers faced little more than a poke officer telling them to take a walk and 

cool down. Now, In some boroughs, partlcularly Brooklyn, prosecutors wlll 

bulld cases agalnst them, even wlthout vlctlms' cooperation. Defendants may 

end up In a speelallzed domestic vlolence court, llke the one that opened last 

week In the Bronx. And If they don't end up In Jall, they wlll flnd themselves 

watched, Intently. by the many eyes of the legal system. 

"The laws are taklng It much more serlously. the Pollce Department Is 

taklng It much more serlously." says Paula Rogowsky, the director of the 

Brooklyn Crlmlnal Court Program for Vlctlm Servlces. a not-for-proflt 

agency that provides servlces for domestlc abuse vlctlms. 

But each new solutlon has brought probiems of its own - and at tlmes 

controversy - along wlth the acknowledgement that there are places the 

system cannot always reach: the minds of some batterers, the hearts of some 

vlctlms and the ties that blnd the two. 

In a rwm In lower Manhattan. 13 accused abusers eather to dlscuss thelr 

and they're back together tomorrow. They work It out themselves." 

That notlon, that two adults consent to a relatlonshlp, and to Its brutality, 

has long shaped society's and the crimlnal-Justlce system's response to 

domestic violence, making nelghbors reluctant to Intervene, the police to 

arrest, the courts to prosecute. So has the fact that women often return to 

behavlor. For Thomas, the Issue is clothes, or the laciof them. "Today my 

glrlfrlend wore something I didn't think was appropl late." he says, descrlbIng the mlnisklrt and tlght top hugging her "beautlful, perfect body." They 

argued. he says. raising his voice and rlslng from hls chair as he reenacts the 

Continued on Page IO 

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.
Continued From Page 1 

scene. “I have to call myself back,” 

he says bitterly, “be a little dog, 

drive her where she wants, watch 

these guys watch her. I have to take 

.~s from her and not get angry.” 

His volatility is obvious, and ominous, since his attendance at this 

groupcounseling session for batterers was ordered by a judge after 

Thomas was arrested for abusing 

the same woman. He and the dozen 

other men report to the New York 

.. City Alternative Assistance Program, on Broadway, once a week for 

30 weeks. If they “act aggressive” - 

yelling, throwing furniture, stalking 

from the room - the court gets 9 

report. If they miss two sessions, 

they may be sent to jail. 

The program’s goal is to get batterers to take responsibility for their 

behavior, and to accept that there is 

no excuse for abuse, that anger must 

be expressed without violence and 

that leaving a bad relationship is , 

better .than duking it out. .., The director, Dr. Jack Sarmanian, 

who agreed to allow a reporter to 

attend a session as long as only the 

men’s first names were used, watches Thomas intently and probes gently. “Do you have a good ,relationship?” he asks. But he prefers to let 

the other men offer guidance, hoping 

?,hey will learn ways to control their 

anger and jealousy as much as 

Thomas’s. Some men, familiar with 

the modesty problem, offer solutions : buy her looser clothes. Compliinent first, encourage more clothes 

later; take pride in her beauty. 

Others throw cold water on Thomas’s’ rage. “Is she respectful?” 

?ames asks. She. is. “Then what’s 

your problem?” 

The men, from different economic 

and ethnic groups, have one thing in common: they are being called to 

account for behavior few thought 

was a crime. At times, they Seem like 

Aip Van Winkles, suddenly awake in, 

and .baffled by, a society in which 

yomen demand help with housecleaning, wear what they want and 

act as they please. 

A strong sense of injustice hangs 

in the air. “We’re all sitting around 

here because we’re supposed to have 

,abused our wives,” Earl says. “What 

about women who abuse men?” 

(They go to groups, too, Dr. Sarmanian says.) 

The men describe women who 

derail their attempts to cool down. A 

group leader suggests.that the men 

Each new solution 

has brought 

problems and 

controversy. 

schedule time to talk about difficult 

issues with their wives. But, Marcel 

asks, “How do you find the time with 

alcoholic when with her it’s sa]- 

ways Miller time?” 

Edgar admits he also uses alcohol, 

to uncork the anger bottled up inside. 

“My anger stews,” he says, quietly. 

“I’m angry about being here right 

now, actually.” 

After the one-hour session ends, 

Alfred, an Indian immigrant, explains that he hit his wife because 

she stole from him to buy drugs. His 

mother, he said, taught him that you 

hit people who don’t listen to you; his 

father reinforced the lesson with constant example. Alfred himself insists 

,he never lost control with his wife, 

,even as he shows the sweeping backhand that knocked out her teeth and 

:landed him in the program. 

; More than 450 people, mostly men, 

!have completed the program since it 

‘started in.1994. About 500 people a 

year attend Alternatives to Violence, a similar progr-dm started by Victim 

Services in 1982. There are no reliable studies of what happens to the 

participants. Indeed, no one knows c for sure whether such programs 

work, whether domestic violence is 

treatable at all in the way that drug 

abuse is. But judges say they are 

effective as monitoring devices. 

“For the most part you are not 

dealing with hard criminals who 

have done hard time,” says Judge La 

Tia Martin of Bronx Criminal Court, 

who hears only domestic violence 

cases. The‘threat of incarceration if 

they drop out of a program “may be. 

enough to jolt them.” 

Arrests Mandatory, 

And They Increase 

Five years ago, many of these men would not even have been in the 

justice‘ system. But in 1994, the Police Department, following state and 

national trends, began treating domestic violence as a serious crime 

problem. Specially trained officers 

were assigned.to each precinct, and 

all officers were instructed to file a 

domestic incident report for every 

comlaint of domestic abuse. The 

polio< bega- yaking regular visits to 

. .. ai:’ . 3 State Legislature 

pzi5.d~ wi. y.3 :ory arrest law, under whi tht :rs must make an 

arrest inh& . iny domestic abuse 

cases and in dl misdemeanor cases unless the victim asks them not to 

and they are convinced that person’s 

safety is not threatened. 

hw, -.; 2. .. .’ . . *. ._ - .- %stories of abuse. 

Last year, there were 27,085 do-. 

mestic violence arrests in the city, ’ 

up from 20,793 in 1995. “We have’had 

women coming in recently saying, 

‘This has been going on for 25 years 

and suddenly they arrested him.”’ 

says Ms. Rogowsky, of Victim Services. “There is more faith in the 

system.” 

Like any blunt policy instrument, 

though, mandatory arrest spawned 

problems of its own. “Clearly we 

have seen a major shift,” says Deputy lnspector William Connors, commander of the Police Department’s 

Domestic Violence Bureau, “borne 

out by the fact that now we are 

arresting too many people.” 

Victims’ advocates and the police 

agree that some batterers are abusing the law - filing false complaints 

so their victims will be arrested. And 

many officers called to fights between couples have been so confused 

by the barrage of accusations .sides 

that they arrest both parties. The 

problem of cross complaints became 

so serious that last October the 

Legislature passed a law requiring , 

officers at domestic violence scenes to identify and arrest the main physical aggressor. 

But Inspector Connors says enforcement of the new lawtbas been 

spotty, mainly because of its complexity. And domestic violence arrests keep flooding - some say clogging - the courts. The Office of 

Court Administration estimates that 

onefifth of all Criminal Court cases 

in the city are domestic violence 

cases, and the executive director of 

Brooklyn Defender Services, Lisa 

Schreibersdorf, said such cases made up 20 to 30 percent of her 

lawyers’ work. She argues, and some 

victims’ advocates agree, that the 

number of complaints makes it easier for the most serious cases to slip 

through the system. With so many 

misdemeanors, Ms. Rogowsky said, 

“It’s so hard to focus on any one case the way you can in the felony part.” 

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.
~ourts Utter Victims - 

Advocates and Services 

A few years ago, New York’s court 

system, recognizing the unique, volatile nature of domestic violence 

cases, began setting up specialized 

xtions that handle only abuse 4 ses. The goals are to protect vicims, increase defendants’ accountability and speed up cases, because 

the longer they languish, the less 

likely victims are to cooperate. 

Most victims of domestic violence 

are women, and those who do cooperate may have to uproot their lives 

.and those of their children. Often, the 

abuser is the household’s main wage 

earner, and if he’s in jail there is no 

food on the table. The victim may 

have to leave her home and her job 

for safety’s sake; her children may 

have to switch schools. 

Domestic violence courts, therefore, have begun assigning each victim an advocate and offering access 

to an array of social services. “We 

have to supplant someone’s most intimate partner,” Judge Judith s. 

Kaye, Chief Judge of the State Court 

of Appeals, said last week in an interview after the opening of .a fullservice three-part domestic vlolence 

criminal court in the Bronx, the first 

of its kind in the city. “We’re saying, 

‘Don’t trust him, trust us.’ It’s essen- tial to build confidence.” 

State officials say they hope to 

open courts similar to the one in the 

IIX, which hears misdemeanor 

es, in aU boroughs. Other areas 

full courts, dealing with domestic 

abuse. 

Only Brooklyn has a domestic violence court that hears felonies exclusively. Opened two years ago, it is 

widely regarded as a model. The 

presiding judge, John M. Leventhal, 

is a mathematics teacher-turnedlawyer who was elected to the State 

Supreme Court in 1994. Judge Matthew D’Emic presides over a recently opened second sectioci. 

@ ve Criminal Court parts, but not 

In Judge Lemthal’s courtroom, 

emotions m high, truth .can be elusive and the threat of violence seems 

to lurk around every comer. At a 

recent hearing, a prosecutor played 

a 911 tape of a woman reporting an 

assault. She was weeping, struggling 

for breath. 

Then it was the defense lawyer’s 

turn. “I’ve heard the tape, Your Honor. I’ve heard the woman allegedly 

sobbing on the tape. A person who 

wants to make a false report would 

do that, weeping into the phone. I 

don’t think it’s the spontaneous utterances of a woman who’s scared.” . 

Judge Leventhal must sort out the 

legal doctrines surrounding the 

tape’s admissibility, but he must 

keep in mind the common history, 

including a young child, of the defendant and the victim. He must protect the rights of the defendant, while 

doing all he can to safeguard the life 

of the victim. 

Judge Leventhal hectors, lectures, 

harangues and occasionally threatens the defendants who appear before him. (“Stop blaming everyone 

else. Start looking in the mirror.”) 

And as a condition of bail - before a 

plea bargain or trial - he often 

sends them to programs for batterers or drug or alcohol abusers. 

After bail is set, he requires them to 

report to him every two or three 

weeks, and every two to three 

months while on probation. The 

judge’s philosophy is simple: intense 

judicial supervision is the best way 

to deter repeat battering. “They 

“need to know they’re being 

‘They need to 

know they’re 

being watched.’ 

watched,” he says. 

On a recent Wednesday, the judge 

ordered a man on bail back to jail 

after a prosecutor said the woman 

who had filed the complaint that led 

to .his original arrest was accusing 

him of threatening her again. The 

woman was not in court; she could 

not be cross-examined. ’ 

Such decisions prompt claims 

from defense lawyers that Judge 

Leventhal’s approach is unfair to defendants. “There’s a real presump 

tion of guilt,” Ms. Schreibersdorf, of 

Brooklyn Defender Services, says. 

The judge is aware of that perception and does not hesitate to address 

it. “I am impartial,” he says, “but I 

have to shield the cori,plainant.” 

He is acutely awhe that his. actions may defuse’a problem or explode it. Will sending a man back to 

.jail protect a woman now but endanger her later? “Thank God, we 

haven’t lost anyone,” he says, but the 

fear haunts him. “Vacations, weekends, you can’t get away,” he says. 

“You watch the news. Is it Brooklyn, 

is it my case,.did I let him out?” 

Ms. Schreibersdorf says the judge 

calls one of her clients “at home 

every weekend” to let him know 

someone’s looking over his shoulder. 

“I admire him for doing it, but he 

can’t keep it up at this pace,” she 

said. “He’s taking it to heart in every 

single case.” 

It istoo early for any hard conclusions, but statistics show that in 

Judge Leventhal’s court there are 

half the number of probation violations as in other courts that handle 

similar cases. As of the end of 1997, 

there were only three outstanding 

warrants, lower than in any other 

Brooklyn felony court. 

Lisa Smith, a Brooklyn Law School 

professor who is the borough’s deputy district attorney for domestic violence, sees this as proof that-new 

ideas can work on an old problem. 

But, she says, “It is slow, laborintensive, a resource drain - every-. 

thing no one in the criminal-justice 

system wants.” 

The office of the Brooklyn District 

Attorney, Charles Hynes, has assembled the city’s largest team of domestic violence prosecutors - 

around 35 - partly because the borough has the most cases. It also 

pursues a controversial policy, ,vhich 

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 district attorneys are 

slowly adopting, of prosecuting 

abuse cases even without the victim’s cooperation; 

Judge Leventhal said 30 to 40 

cent of the victims in his court 

t their accounts regardless of dlr- eir veracity. And Ms. Smith tells of 

a women hit by five bullets, and 

another with hundreds of stitches, 

refusing to press charges against 

their partners and abusers. In one 

case, she said, a woman beaten by a 

recently paroled murderer refused 

to prosecute. “We have to intervene,” she added, going so far as to 

subpoena some victims who were 

reluctant to testify. 

But defense lawyers and some 

judges argue that going against a 

victim’s wishes is another way of 

victimizing her,’ reinforcing her powerlessness. Chief Judge Kaye said 

that approach “sometimes is just 

another instance of a loss of control” 

for a victim. 

Judge Leventhal’s court may be 

attracting attention, but as a felony 

court it hears only-a small portion of 

Brooklyn’s domestic violence cases. 

Most are heard in Ceminal Court, 

where judges and prosecutors have 

less time, and fewer options, in dealing with domestic violence. Under 

state law, a misdemeanor case can- not go ,forward unless the victim 

signs a corroborating affidavit and 

ees to testify if there is a trial. e ’rosecutors in Brooklyn try to perade unwilling victims to change 

their minds, and they may hold cases 

for.the 9May maximum allowed by 

law h the hope of such a turnaround. 

But 50 percent of misdemeanor 

cases are dropped because the victims will not cooperate. 

On a recent Wednesday, three men 

sat scowling in a misdemeanor 

courtroom in Brooklyn used for domestic violence cases. All three said 

their wives or girlfriends did not 

want to press charges but were being 

pressured to by prosecutors. Ricardo, who would give no last name, said 

that he had been charged in two 

incidents but that his wife had bailed 

him out. “She needs me to pay the 

rent,” he said. “She earns pennies.” 

Orders of Protection 

Go Only So Far 

When there is no hope of prosecur 

tion, and even when there is, judges 

routinely use a weapon that in many 

cases has had limited effect: the 

order of protection. Such orders can 

bar a defendant from contact with a 

victim or let a couple live together 

as long as no abJse occurs. Since 

1996, it has been a felony to violate a protection order when there is a prior violation within five years. Still, 

judges say, there is little they can do 

to guarantee that they are obeyed. 

Samuel Tolliver had an arrest 

record dating to 1964, and those who 

1 knew him said he did not fear jail 

much. In March, he was arrested on 

charges that he hit Ms. Chambers-in 

the face with a dinner plate, cutting 

her eye. Unlike so many times in the 

past, she agreed to press charges. 

Mr. Tolliver pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and was sentenced to 

60 days in jail and 34 months’ probation. When he was released, Judge 

Lee Cross ordered him to stay away 

from Ms. Chambers for three years 

and to enter an alcohol treatment 

program. 

Mr. Tolliver drank heavily, and 

Ms. Chambers often drank with him, 

a common phenomenon, says Kadhija Shepard, a Victim Services 

counselor who works with residents 

in eastern Brooklyn’s housing 

projects. “They enable each other; 

it’s a commonality: ‘We drink together, have kids together.’ ” Alcohol 

does not cause the rage that drives 

domestic violence, experts say, but it 

can unleash it. 

The couple met a decade ago, and 

the abuse’apparently began not long 

after. The first of many incidents 

recorded by the Housing Authority 

was in 1990, when records show Mr. 

Tolliver cut her with a knife. 

The authority is another agency 

that is taking domestic abuse more 

seriously; last year it offered confidential emergency transfers to 520 

victims. But a spokesman, Hilly 

Gross, said many offers were declined. An agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Ms. 

Chambers turned down a transfer 

offer as well as referrals to counselors. And when ofticials tried to evict 

Mr. Tolliver, she let him back in. 

She feared him, friends, relatives 

and co-workers said. And “she was 

crazy about him,” said her mother, 

Beulah Brown. They had two children together. Mr. Tolliver counted 

on her welfare income for sustenance and her apartment for shelter. 

Last New Year’s Eve, Mr. Tolliver 

menaced Ms. Chambers with a knife, 

and a neighbbr called 911. Soon after, 

the city placed their two young children with Ms. Chambers’s sister. Ms. 

Chambers was devastated. “She 

cried Like a baby,” one neighbor said. 

But her colleagues at the Atlantic 

Senior Center, where she had worked 

as an aide since October, were trying 

to bolster her self-steem, telling her 

she would be better off without her 

boyfriend. Her supervisor, who 

asked not to tie identified, noticed a 

change: she was drinking less, dressing better. Her outlook was brighter. 

Mr. Tolliver, meanwhile, seemed 

to be spiraling out of control. “He 

was just completely gone,” Ms. 

Chambers’s mother said, “drinking, 

cursing, fighting.’’ He slept all day, 

she said, and drank at night, awakening her daughter to beat her. 

Just after Mr. TolQver was sent to 

jail for the assault with the plate, Ms. 

Chambers had a temporary relapse, 

but then seemed to thrive on his 

absence. “When he was taken out of 

her life, she was even happier,” her 

supervisor said. “She was a totdy 

different person.” 

The weman everyone called SAley was with 2 new boyfriend on the 

day Samuel Tolliver came lookeg 

for her and his shirts. “1 think he was devastated that she didn‘t ne+ 

him,” her supervisor said. “Seeisg 

her looking glamorous and happy, 

plus she had gotten him in trouble:’ 

Her mother said the same thing: 

“She was determined in the end nbt 

to take him back. I think he sensed 

that he would lose everything.” 

But instead of calling the police 

when she saw Mr. Tolliver,’ Ms. 

Chambers went to her apartm< 

and brought his shirts to the lobby. 

“There are things the system is in&- 

pable of doing,” said a spokesman 

for the Office of Court Administrption, David Bookstaver. “We cannot 

stop people from violating their oh 

orders of protection.” 

The system is also incapable bf 

identifying lethal batterers. Homicides are rare in domestic violence 

cases, experts say. They are also 

* frighteningly unpredictable. A serious history of violence in a relationship does no: 9ecessarily mean it will 

turn deadly. But as Karan Chambers’s case showed, it may. 

“Why did God take her away?” 

Ms. Chambers’s supervisor -asked. 

“Not God, -actually. Samuel.” 

, 

.: 

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.
e 

MWO mc nvm UIQ LIAR SINCE im 4Jfk gab go 

E 217-NO. 40 NEW YORK, MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1997 ulnr Nrr vn,. Ur hbulihlw Co PRICE $3.00 

-_ 

IN THE COURTS 

Monitoring Suspects Key to New Part 

Domestic Violence Court Applauded 

For First Five Months of Operation 

BY MATTHEW tlOLDSTEIN 

ROBERT WILSON, awaitlng lrlal on charges of assaultlng and harassing a former glrifrlend, WAS not 

scheduled to appear agaln In Brooklyn SuprernC Court 

for several weeks when Justice John M. Levenllial 

learned the defendant allegedly made threatening telephone calls to the woinaii from jall. 

The Judge dld riot wall for the scheduled appearance. 

Instead he summoned Mr. Wilson lo court lo read hint 

a Judlclal versloii of lhe riot act. 

"This Is a violation of my order of protection," said 

Justlce Levenlhal, the Ilrst Supreme Court )ustlce as- 

' I slgned exclusively to handle serlous dornestlc violence 

cases.., ,.,:; ' +,. "Slr,'I. know It in lust an' allegatlon, but i am impressed wlth the allegalion," the judge contlnued, 8s 

, he defendant stood 4th his wrlsls hiidcuffed beliltid 

hls back. "I don't want to have any more reports of 

incldenls like+ thls, assuming . . . they are true.". 

Such slern warnlngs are not unusual fnr Justlce Leventhal, 48, a former Juiilor high school teacher. arid 

defense alloriiey who keeps a llghl rcln over his colirlrootii a1 360 Adanis Sheet. Over il two-dav iwlod recenlly,, the judge, who elso ?is. a foniiw,ahiheur box-, - .- PIIOTOCRAPII BY RICK 'KOPSTtlN 

Justice John Loventhal wlth a defendant In DomesContinued on page 6, colciwn 4 . tlc Vlo~ence Court. 

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.
Monitoring Key to New Domestic Violence Part 

Contlnoed from page 1. cohmn 4 

er, kept arguments in his courtroom 

in check with comments such as: "I'm 

sony to cut you off. but 1 must;" "Listen to me, . . . not to your client" and 

"I'm not going to have the inmztes 

running the prison." 

Indeed. the warning to Mr. Wilson is 

emblemauc of the guiding principle of 

the Domestic Violence Court, where a 

premium is placed on increased judicial monitoring of defendants. As a 

geheral rule, suspects who make bail 

must return every two weeks while 

awaiting trial, and they must attend a 

domestic violence counseling 

program. But unlike other experimental state 

courts. where the focus is on enrolling 

defendants in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program, Justice Leventhal 

said the purpose of his court is to 

protect victims and punish the guilty. 

"This is not a social service program," he said during a recent inter- 

.view. "Most of these cases are very 

serious. My goal is not to get marriages to work" 

Watchful Eye 

Since the court's opening in SeF 

tember. Justice Leventhal has presided over 70 dispositions, most 

involving convictions after trial or 

pleas. He has 150 open cases on his 

docket of which all but 10 percent 

involve male defendants. Justice Leventhal said the relatively small caseload has made it easier to doseky 

monitor defendants. 

The special part is the product of a 

collaboration between the court system and the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office in December, Chief Judge 

Judith S. bye announced plans to 

open specialized courts in the city to 

handle misdemeanor domestic violence cases. So far, such courts exist 

in Queens and Brooklyn. 

Lisa Smith, a deputy district attorney who heads the Brooklyn District 

Anorney's domestic violence bureau, 

said assignipg one judge to handle serious inudc pts means that each case 

gets the att.?ztion it deserves. Beiore - 

me court opened. she sajd, these 

were given short shritt from 

judges whose dockets !ere filled with 

more serious crimes. 

"A stalking case may not seem a 

Serious when compared to an armed 

robbery," said Ms. Smith. But a stalk-' 

ing has the potential to turn into a 

murder we if not handled properly, 

she said. 

One thing Justice Leventhal confronted early is the reluctance of 

many victims to cooperate with prosecutors. It is not uncommon, he said, 

for a defense lawyer to produce a letter in which the alleged victim claims 

she wants to drop charges. 

But, noting that Brooklyn prosecutors have a policy of purs@ng domestic violence cases with or without the 

victim's cooperation, the judge advises defense lawyers not to assume 

unwillingness to testify means a 

dismissal. 

Prosecutors Pleased 

Rosecutors are pleased so far with 

the court's results but reactions from 

defense attorneys are mixed. While no 

one questioned Justice Leventhal's 

abilities or fairness. some expressed 

concem that the prosecution ho!ds 

the upper hand. 

"Everything in that part implies 

guilt It is completely designed to take 

the victim's point of view and run with 

iL" said Lisa Schreibersdorf, executive director of Brooklyn Defender 

SerViCeS. 

Philip Sicks, a defense attorney who 

has represented six clients before Justice Leventhal. said because the same 

prosecutors appear in court day-in, 

day-out.the court "sort of has a symbiotic relationship with the D.A" He 

added that while defense attornqrs 

have not protested formally, many 

had "philosophical problems" with 

the madatory counseling program. 

Ms. Schreibersdorf was less diffident "Having them go to counseling 

for batterers asurns that they are 

guilty: she said. 

Justice Leventhal said the program 

is merely another vehicle for keeping 

tabs on defendants. He does not care 

what the defendants say during those 

sessions, he said, and he draws no 

conclusions from their attendance. If 

the defendant finds them helpful, he 

said, that is an added benefit 

"1 don't use it to say: 'You're guilty. 

You better get some sensitivity training,' " explained Justice Lwenthal. "1 

use it as a monitoring device." 

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.
c) 

Norm Bureau (718) 822-3374 F L Fax (718) 822-1562 

Home Dellvery 1800692-NEWS ._ 

Q 

N 

\ 

Bx. court to focus 

on domestic abuse 

By JOROE WTIZOIBBON 

OhNC"SS(snWlRU 

Stale court officials go1 more serious yesterday about bzllling domestic violence in 

lhe Bronx by unveiling a new streamlined and high-lech 

system lo deal with batlerers 

and their victims. 

The Bronx Domeslic VicIrnce Court, funded with $1 

million in state and federal 

granls. calls for three special- izcd courtrooms lo deal only 

wilh domcstic violrncr! cases and incliides myriad services to aid viclims. 

llic goal is lo give lhe cases niorc scniliny and slop ballcrers before their abuse 

lurns dradly. 

"Vomeslic violence cases arc vcry Iiindaniei1tally differ. rnl than cases dealing wilh vi. 

olcnre among slrangers." said 

slale ChiefJudge Judilh Kayc. 

"The violence can conlinue 

arid even escalate. 

. .. 

"Now we are ready 10 take a luclant victims wilh immedi. 

very subrtsnlial next step." ale attenlion and quick access The Bronx Domestic Vio- lo support services. 

lence Court is phase lwo of a Stale Chief Administrative 

program designed lo inlro- Judge Jonathan Lippman said 

duce the specialized prognm lhe first part of lhe plan, a two- throughout year-old pm the five boroughs. 

The dismissal rate in violence. " Brooklyn for 

lhose cases - cases thal 

have, until 

general courl calendars. 

specialized lrealmcnl. with a 

compulerited tracking syslem 

for alleged abusers and a help network lo provide onen-re3.76. Ihe lowcsl dismissal rate These cases now will gel among all relonies in the coun- ty. Lippman said. 

Il also is an irnpressivr nun,. bcr for cases 111 which the vir. lims. usually spouses or Ihe 

battemr. may be reluctant to 

cooperate because they know 

and rear their attacker or are prone lo forgive the hatlerer. 

The number or Brooklyn 

ballerers who violate proba. 

lion also has been cut in half, 

and currenlly only three domestic violence warrants are oulstanding. 

"NOW comes lhe ultimate 

challenge." Lippman said or w expanding into Bronx Criniinal CourI. where 1.600 domrs- 5 

tic violence cases are pending. rf, 

Bronx DistriclAtlornrg 

Robert Johnson said Lhal by 

dealing with niisdcmeanordomeslic violence cases. lhe pro- * 

gram will begin addressing 

abuse cases early on. berore 2 

they escalale into felonies. 

"We will curtail lhc reioiiy 2 

violence."Johnson said. 

"We will reach lhe pcrpc- 2 

1ralorS of violence wilhin Ihr 

home while il is slill misde- . meanor violence." 0, ID 

... . .... .. 

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.
Domestic Violence Part 

Breaks New' Ground 

BY MARNl HALASA 

WI III'E PLANS -After a ycar 01 olwralloii, courthouse regulars aiid observers say 

they are optlmlstlc that the strategy adopted by the .WestChester Supreiiic Court 

doiiiestlc vlolence part-to rely oil a teiw 

of ngeiicles lo ncltlrcss iiiu1tll)lc Isstics-will 

prove siicccssful 111 liaiidlliig tlicsc coriiplcx 

and dllllCUlt cases. 

Clilcr Adiiiliilstrnllvc Judge Joiialliaii Wpp 

iiiaii establlslied the court, wlilcli olllclally 

opei!cd Its doors Juric 15, 1999, bccnusc. IIC 

saltl, tloiiicstlc vlolciicc C~SCS rccplro a dlffereiit tecliiilque duc to lliclr volatile n~id 

complex nature. The court adoplctl tlic 

iiielliod of collaborntioii belwecii crliiiliial 

/ustlcc aiid coinrnuiilty ageiicles. Iii Wcslchester, the domestic violence court Is run by 

a sliigle presldiiig judge, Westcliester Couiity Court Judge Darilel D. An~lollllo, a sl~cclflc 

prosccutorlal lcniii froiii tlic Olstrlct Attorney's olflce, aiid a vlctliii advocate lroiii My 

Slster's Place, a iionproflt ageiicy In White 

l'laliis tliat 1)rovltlcs slicllcr lor battcrcti 

woiiicii iiiicl lliclr clilldrcii. 

"WC really liave a oourdliiiltctl crlriiiiial 

justlcc rcspoiisc 10 doiiiestlc vlolerice," 

cxplalricd Judge hrigiollllo, who Is a Weslcliesler County hclliig Supreiiie Coiirl Justice. 

"WItIi tlre court aiid coiiiiiiwllty ageiiclcs 

workliig togctlicr. we caii really iiioiiltor llic 

tlcfclltl;lllts illid lullow WlliJt liJl~l~clls Wltll 

CJCll case." 

Utillkc ollicr courls, tlic cloiiicsllc vloIciicc! part iiioiiltors tlclciiclarils alter llic 

ciisc liad critlctl. 'l'liat slop Is cruchl In geliliig coiitrol over tloiiicsllc vlolciicc, wliicli 

by iiaturc Is ii loiig, liivolvctf coriii~lex 

I)roccss, said Victoria L. Lutz, hecutlve 

Ulrector of I'acc \Yoriieii's Justice Cciiler, 

Pace Uiilverslty School of Law. 

- Accordlrig lo hls. Lutz, a coordliialed teani 

caii Iiclp rcsolvc cases ciulckly. hi adtlitioii, 

oiie Jiid~e tlctllcntecl to Iicnrliig tlicse CiiSC'S 

ilcvclolxi aii cxl)crtlsc, slic s;iltl. Lawyers 

Co~ili~iued oii page NS3 

PllOTDCRA~II BY CIIRLS RAMlW 

Westchentar County Court Judge Dnnlal 

D. Anglollllo spoke at the Judlclal 

Response to Domestic Violence sernlnar 

the Family Partnershlp Center In Poughkeepsle June 14. 

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.
New. Domestic Violence Court ~ 

claimed that Judge Angiolillo's calm and 

patient temperament works well In the courtroom 

'I don't hold myself out to be an expert," 

explained Judge Angiolillo, "but I do how 

so much more about domestic violence than 

I did a year ago, and I know that helps me 

when I'm on the bench." 

In addition, the domestic violence court, 

in conjunction with the Westchester County 

Family Court, has made the White Plains 

courthouse a oncstop shop for victims, said 

Ms. Lutz. 

"Victims of domestic violence usually 

have a multitude of problems at the same 

time. With the inclusion of this new part, 

the courthouse is a place where the victim 

can get an order of protection, as well as get 

help for other needs such as child support," 

explained Ms. Lutz. 'It makes it much ehsier for victims to get help." 

No Dismissals 

Compared to other domestic violence 

courts in the state, the Westchester court. 

financed by a grmt from the state's Division 

of Criminal Justice Sen-ices. is unique 

because it is the only one handling both 

domestic violence felonies and misdemeanors. Specificalfy. the part hears all 

domestic violence felony cases in the COUP 

ty and all domestic violence misdemeanor 

cases from White Plains, including interspousal and parentthild abuse cases. 

Since the court opened, according to 

Judge Angiolillo, no cases have been dismissed and no misdemeanors have become 

felonies. In the past year, the court has 

heard 120 cases, both felonies and misdemeanors. According to the Center for Court 

Innovation, the domestic violence court in 

Brooklyn handles between 450 to 500 indicted felonies each year. In the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court there are 

over 2,000 cases pending at any one time. 

In Westchester, three trials have resulted 

in convictions. In the court's first trial in Feb 

ruary 2000. a jury convicted a former Mount 

Vernon man, Douglas Reid, 39, of burglary, 

crimlnal contempt and assault charges 

stemming from his breaking into an e~3irIfriend's apartment and assaulting her, 

according to the Wekhester County District Attorney's office The woman had an 

order of protection against Mr. Reid. 

Although Judge Angiolillo said It Is still 

too earfyin the game to make any determinations about the court's track record, he 

said he believes the court is off to a good 

start. 

'Lf we do a good job, maybe our jurisdic- 

. 

tion will be expanded to Include mlsdemeanon from places like the Town of Greenburgh," he said. 

Hearing Misdemeanors 

The importance of focusing on misac 

meanors, attorneys said, is to prevent 

domestic violence incidents from escalating. The emotional relationship lxtween the 

batterer and the victim increases the risk of 

violence. explained Jeanine Pirro, the 

Westchester County District Attorney. 

According to Ms. Pirro. dealing with the 

misdemeanor early gives the legal system 

an opportunity to intervene before the same 

defendant gets involved with a more serious crime 

One source that did not want to be identified. however, disputed that notion, sayin3 that escalation from a domestic violence 

misdemeanor is rare. Although the court 

can be elfective when an order of protection 

is violated. the source said, the court 

becomes inundated with petty criminal contempt offenses. such as harassment, that do 

not lmly require the attention of the specialized court. 

But Judge Angiolillo maintained that in 

many instances. lesser uirnes can erupt into 

more egregious ones. 

In general. the court tracks defendants 

while their cases are pending, as well as 

when the case is over. fhe court also regularly checks to see whether defendants are 

attending mandated batterers' intervention 

programs given by Volunteer Counseling 

Services. In general. defendants who have 

not attended their mandated programs and 

do not have a valid excuse are penalized. 

In court, Judge Angiolillo did not hesitate 

to raise a defendant's bail from 31.000 to 

52,500 after hing that the individual did 

not attend the batterers' program. 

'It's really a casebycase basis. If the 

defendant has a valid excuse for why he 

wasn't attending a propm. I'll take that into 

consideration," said Judge Angiolillo. 

Whether a defendant has a valid excuse 

for not attending a progam that day will be 

checked. said Karen Sarcone, Project 

Resource Coordinator for the court Ms. Sarcone is responsible for holding each agency 

responsible for conslstent reporting about 

the defendant and victim, and presents this 

information before each court appearance. 

Ms. Sarcone has found that coordination 

between the prosecutors, defense attorneys; advocates and court liaisons from the 

intervention programs have strengthened 

Ihe court's response to domestic violence. 

'If all the parties are allied, any kind of 

collusion or manipulation on the part of the 

defendant doesn't work" she said. 

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 look at Westcbester County? Domestic Kolence Court as it approaches its first anniuersdry. 

Robert Masterson 

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.
his is the court where that drunken 3 a.m. 7 pounding-on-the-door-screaming “Let me in, 

you bitch,” those 20 hang-up phone calls at her 

place of work, those drives by her house just to see who she’s 

hcking now, the clenched fists, the raised fists and the shattering blows are all laid out in the cold, clear light of day in front of 

strangers who, in rapid-fire legalese amongst themselves, strip it all of 

explanation, justification, rationalization. 

how many people, how many advocates and how many re resentatives of how many different 

the attention of the police and the court, it is no longer a private matter. 

A dilemma is being played out before the court this particular morning. The accused is charged 

with continued violation of the court-imposed order of protectjon that forbids him any contact 

with his alleged victim. The assistant DA has presented evidence that the young man has called 

his former girlfticnd numerous times from jail. The defense attorney produces letters, written in 

Spanish and translated into English, from the victim to her former boyfriend, who languishes in 

the Westchester County lock-up. The letters are 

A look at a flow chart illustrating the workings of Domestic Violence Court shows 

agencies and institutions separate the victim from the defen B ant. Once the relationship comes to 

“Wbat you bme, more ofien tban Y 

romantic, erotic, even pornogra[;hic, and, says the . I 

attorney, present a justSficatiok for the phonicalls. 

No they do not, the murt tells the defendant. 

The matter is no longer between you and this 

woman. This matter is between us, between YOU 

no& 2s a Woman beaten by who 

says thdthe loves bex This Dersonal .I 1 and this court. And this court forbids you to have 

any contact of any kind with this woman. No ‘ re&onsb$ cre&es dll kin& of issues 

matter what she does. No matter what she says. 

that men? relevunt to amdt cares 

between strangers. 

Until this court says otherwise, you may not have 

any contact with her. 

The defendant says he understands; his lawyer 

says it’s all been explained several times, but past 

action and that look inthe o man’s eye make 

that comprrhenrion rem L~I, Mer ~II, even if 

she’s pl ing with his hd to+ fiim in trouble. doesn’t that mean she somehow still cares? 

All t at ardor and affection ne so drastically awry is processed into a case file. There are no 

excuses, no room here for any e saidlshe said denials and deconstructions. However, there arc 

required treatment and therapy programs, orders of protection separating victim and pe etrator, 

supervised probation periods and jail sentences. This courtroom is very, very far away ‘p rom the 

shattered glass and the blood-spattered rooms and the anguished howls and the ERs in which such 

events were spawned. And rightly so. 

99 

r 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.
“You cannot expect a victim to go forward in the criminal justice system unless there is a real support network,” says Westchester County District Attorney 

Jeanine Pirro. “The nature of the relationship 

[between victim and perpetrator] is such that it 

mitigates following through with the charges. 

Wliat you have, more often than not, is a 

woman beaten by a man who says that he loves 

her. This personal relationship creates all 

kinds of issues that aren’t relevant to assault 

cases between strangers.” 

Without specialized training, experience 

arid sensitivity to the issues involved, the 

oficers and advocates who handle domestic ; 

violence cases before the court may not , understand or appreciate exactly what is : 

involved. 

“Domestic violence is a unique crime 

and requires a level of understandin$ that‘s 

a little different,” explains Amy Paulm, cochair of Westchester Women’s Agenda and 

former executive director of My Sister’s Place, 

an agency for battered women. 

“When you have one group of people concentrating on it, they can develop the expertise 

they need to deai with tile issues. Unlike other 

crimes, which are usually one-time crimes, you’re 

dealing with families and there are many more complications. There are ofien children involved, there are 

emotional ties and [the crimes or the abuse] can be continual.. .and the dynamics between the parties is different. 

Domestic violence is really about power and control, about 

one person’s desire to exert control over another.” 

he first domestic violence case to be tried by jury in hgiolillo’s 7 courtroom resulted in a conviction for Douglas Reid, formerly of 

Mount Vernon, and a sentence of at least 11.5 years in state 

prison on charges of burglary, criminal contempt and assault. 

“The overall goal ofthe court is to improve the response to domestic violence cases by the eriminal justice system,” says Angiolillo, who’s served as a county judge since 1994. “Somebody might 

think that if you look in the penal codes you’re going to find [a category] of domestic violence 

crimes. You’re not going to find that, per se. You’re going to find, for instance, assault in the first, 

second or third degrees. But, if the crime is committed and it’s between two people who are mar- . 

ried or who have a child or who have an intimate relationship, then that case will be in my court. : 

“Whether you have an assault case or an 

type of crime, it really doesn’t matter w K at Other the 

crime is, it could be a burglary charge, an assault 

charge, a harassment charge, criminal contempt 

violatin a court order, a sex crime.” 

Whike a conventional burglary can be a rather 

simple and comprehensible crime-a crime of 

theft for profit-a case before Judge Angiolillo carries no such dear-cut implications. The heartbreak 

and stupidity contained in the vessel of domestic 

violence can be difficult for a jury to comprehend. 

“Let me give you an example,” Angiolillo 

explains. “(In the matter of Douglas Reid] during i 

jury selection, I had to tell the jury a little about 

the nature of the charges. There was a charge of 

burglary, of assault, of criminal contempt. I told 

them a little about the facts of the case, of the dlegations made. We had a number of jurors present questions about the use of the word ‘burglary.’ 

They hadn’t heard anything about thefi or anything being stolen. When they heard the word 

‘burglary’ they thought of theft. In a domestic violence case it’s not necessarily going to be that. 

I had to explain to them that the way New York state law is written, that for someone knowing- ’ 

ly and unlawfully to enter someone else’s dwelling with the intention ofcommitting a crime, that 

crime doesn’t have to be a larceny. The crime that he intended to commit was assault and he was 

convicted of that.” 

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.
ne aspect of domestic violence crimes that is clear to all 

involved is that they are not limited to any particular 

demographic group. Victims and petpetrators can be 

found in every social, economic, racial, ethnic and class category. Direct observation of Westchester County’s Domestic 

Violence Court belies that fact, however. Mer four weeks of 

observation. it was equally clear that the vast majority of defendants and victims appearing in Judge Angiolillo’s court were 

African-American or Latino, that most of the cases involved 

families from southern Westchester County and that most of 

those families were from economically disadvantaged households. Where were the rich white guys, the stockbrokers and the 

lawyers and the doctors? Where were the Wcstchester wives and 

girlfriends thcy victimize? 

“It’s not that they don’t ex erience [domestic] violence,” 

is not reflected in the court. I think that more affluent women 

might have more resources to leave a situation that do not 

involve the court. They can flee.. . and be able to pay for it. They 

may not have the same economic ties that [keeps them in a situation] until the violence escalates into a felony. The options for 

people with more resources are there. It is not the case that 

domestic violence does not occur in more affluent homes.” 

Anecdotal evidence suggests Paulin is correct. There are 

no small number of misdemeanor domestic violence 

cases heard by village and town judges around the 

county, in communities known for 

their wealth and 

prestige, and it is 

likely that many 

or most of those 

situations are 

resolved without the further 

involvement of law enforcement, 

outside the crimina! judicial system and long before a felony 

offeiwc occurs or is reported. 

Lisi Lord, assistant executive 

director of My Sister’s Place, brings 

further insight into the discussion 

of who actually ends up in 

Domestic Violence Court. 

“We know that if you have the financial 

resources to buy good legal help, if you have the 

connections [her voice trails om.. . On our end, 

we experience plenty of very wealthy battered 

women but their batterets are not held accountable to the same extent in this county,” Lord 

observes of the predominately poorer, predominately AfricanAmerican and Latino defendants before Judge hgiolillo. 

Paulin posits. “The whole popu r ation [of Westchester County] 

“I think that what the Domestic Violence Court is doing 

is excellent. It‘s a generalized problem in our criminal justice 

system, that people well-connected and with resources are 

not held accountable [for their actions]. They’re not chargcd 

to the same extent. The victims that we see [at My Sister’s 

Place] cut across all racial and socio-economic lines and it’s 

true that we see fewer of them in the criminal justice system. 

We’ll see more of them in family court but not in the criminal justice system.” 

It is one of the complexitia of Westchester County, a coutlty known for its affluence, that many residents live well below 

the stereotyped standard of living. The mansions in Purchase 

and Harrison are a long way from the projects of Yonkers and 

Mt. Vernon, but domestic violence can also take many forms. 

“Much of what we define as battering is not illegal,” Lord 

continues. “If I can control my partner solely through economics, I may never have to punch her. There’s nothing illegal about 

those kinds ofcontrol and intimidation tactics. If I’m a victim of 

domestic violence and I live in Scarsdale, my kids have wonderful schools and a good life. I have a nice home. I know that if I 

pick up the hone, or if I believe that if I pick up the phone to 

is that my standard of living and my children’s standard of living 

will plummet. We know many victims who are willing to give 

that up for themselves but not for their kids. Sometimes there 

are controls that are not the kind of controls that come under 

the scrutiny of the criminal justice system.” 

3“‘ rinciples under which Westchesterb Domestic Vi0 P ence Court operates were developed first in New 

York City and, undefi. the Unified Court System of 

New York State, led by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, were replicated in a variety of courts around the state in urban, rural and 

suburban settings regardless ofwhether the area requires or can 

sustain a specialized domestic violence cniirr The principles 

stress strong collaboration and p,artnership between a number 

of judicial and community organizations to create a consistent 

and effective response to, as the information sheet says, “these 

complex and volatile cases.” In Westchester, the court hears 

both misdemeanor and felony cases from the city of White 

Plains, as well as all felony cases from the entire county. 

The Domestic Violence Court, has been designed to promote “immediate, certain and corisistent response to dornestic violence crimes including both punishment and barterers’ 

intervention programs; victim safety, victim access to housiiig, 

counseling 

and other 

social 

t’y to get he P p for myselfi perhaps what’s really holding me back 

- . .- - 

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 n t e rven t ion 

Program 

tl 

(Dedicated Felony 

DNDV Team) 

Complaining [ yitness J 

victim) 

// II /H - 

Dkdicated Victim 

Advocate Team 

(Victim Services 

A buse/M e n t a I I I I ness 

services, and 

victim access ~p 

-information about 

court dispositions 

and coodicions imposed on defendants: intensive monitoring 

of defendants’ compliance with orders of protection, so that 

violations result in swift response; continuous judicia! siyetvision of cases from arraignment through disposition, and 

ost-disposition for defendants whose sentences include pro- 

&at ion; coordinated response by social service and criminal 

justice agencies; and enhanced accountability both for offenders and for agencies res onsible for defendant programs, 

defendant monitorikg anIvictim advocacy.” 

It all boils down to some fairly simple (though profound) 

attitude adjustments that are meant to. ensure that, once a situation comes to the attention of the Westchester court, it is 

dealt with decisively and positively. 

Judge Angiolillo’s court is part of a growing trend of specialized courts designed to evaluate and handle specific kinds 

of crime. There are traffic courts, gun courts, drug courts and 

now a domestic violence court. Specialized courts are 

designed to both relieve the traffic through overb,urdened 

criminal courts and to provide both defendants and victims 

with a measuu: of consistency. Angiollio hears all phases of the 

cases that coinc before his court and provides continuity for 

thP nmcrrAinoc 

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 domestic violence court can focus more on the needs of 

the victim as well as the defendant,” I’irro explains. “There’s a 

tremendous resource capacity that will benefit the victim, the 

defendant and society at large if all these cases are pooled in 

one court before one judge who can address the unique circumstances-unique from other kinds of cases but perhaps 

not unique from each other.” 

The question remains, though, whether a court that places 

such attention upon the relationship between accused and 

victim serves to address and protect the defendants’ rights. 

There are critics who cry “foul,” who cite a so-called cultutei 

of victimhood weighted toward the more-often-than-not 

female accuser and slanted against thc more-often-than-not 

male defendant. These critics question whether such a specialized coutt is not redundant. 

“This office has supported the idea of a domestic violence 

court,” counters Jeanne Mettler, senior trial counsel of the 

Criminal Division of the Legal Aid Society. “We would like to, 

think that a mote holistic approach will benefit our clients, 

too. Our clients didn’t fall from the sky. Our clients come 

from homes where there was abuse, where there were other 

problems that may have led them to where they are today. I 

want a coutt that is sensitive to that. The question is not just 

‘Did he do it?’ but ‘How did this person come to be 

where he is today?’ That’s an important question. We 

want [our clients] to receive all the benefits 

of this holistic approach that a victim 

Westchester County’s Domestic 

Violence Court supports an entire 

armature of treatment programs 

and therapeutic services for 

both victim and perpetrator. In one 

noteworthy case, 

Judge Angiolillo 

kept a convicted 

defendant out of 

jail despite the 

c e co m men da - tion of the county’s probation 

assessment. Reviewing the progress this particular 

individual had made, the diligence 

with which he attended battered 

intervention meetings, the judge, 

chose to allow him supepised 

freedom. Rather than receiving 

punitive incarceration, the defendant was allowed to continue his 

work toward rehabilitation. He was, 

receives.” 

however, by no means free from the court’s jurisdiction and 

Judge Angiolillo made it abundantly clear that,,should any 

report of drug or alcohol use or missed meetings or further 

violation of the law reach his desk, jail time would be immediately imposed. 

“My clients’ concerns are that they are able to continue to 

see their children or that the family somehow survives or tliat 

the relationship with this woman somehow survives,” Mettler 

continues. “Even if you take the view that domestic violence 

has been overlooked in this society, it does not mean that all 

cases deserve to end up in criminal court. There is some sense 

among the advocates for the court that more punishment is 

better, that we’re doing more to solve the problem by giving 

more punishment. There are other avenues.” 

ne of the key members of the team working in the 

court is placed directly in the center of the court’s flow 

chart. Karen Buttacavoli is the Project Resource 

Coordinator for the court and all roads-legal, advocacy and 

assistance-lead to her ofice. The District Attorney’s Ofice, 

the County Office of Probation, the Department of 

Community Mental Health, the Mental Health Association 

of Westchester County, the Workshop for Anti-Violcnce 

Education (WAVE), Victim Assistance Services, the Northern’ 

Westchester Shelter, the Men’s Domestic Violence Program of 

Putnam County, and My Sister’s Place are among those coorTHE WESTCHESTER COUNTY WEEKLY MAY I8.2000 9 

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.
dinating their efforts through her office as part of the Treatment 

Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC) Referral program. 

“I’m a social worker licensed by the State of New York and a good part 

of my training was devoted to separating emotions from the ‘facts,’” 

Buttacavoli says. “It’s important to understand the whole spectrum 

involvcd in each case, to maintain total neutrality, but at the same time to 

look at each case individually and to understand the dynamics of each 

case. 

“Before each court appearance. before each arraignment, part of my 

duty is to look at the history of these people to see if there are records of 

past domestic violence. Unfortunately, there are some defendants who are 

in a domestic violence registry with multiple violations against one or 

more people in their pasts. 1 get the status re orts from every agency 

involved, domestic violence programs, drug/alco E 01 programs and psychiatric programs. I’m also going to gather the victims’ advocate reports. It’s 

about accountability.. .there is immediate, consistent response, intensive 

monitoring of defendants. It’s about creating what we call the 

Coordinated Community Response with Zero Tolerance.” 

It is probably that very intensive monitoring and sustained scrutiny 

The heartbreak and stupidity-- 

1. contamed zn the vessel of 

‘ domestic violence can be 

to comprehend 

under this model. There is, instcad. a protracte I period of acknowledge- 

. -- 

that goes a long way to accomplishing the goals and mission of Domestic 

Violence Court. There is no hiding, no shirkin or diminishing allowed 

ment and confrontation. 

“We see [Domestic Violence Court] as a tremendous success,” Distkict 

Attorney Pirro adds. “The victims are getting.the attention they need; the 

defendants are being monitored. We all kno& that domestic violence 

increases in intensity and frequency as time goes on. Unless there is some 

kind of intervention, which this coutt is in a position to ordcr and to 

monitor, we’re doing hothlng more than churning out defendants. This 

court ensures that the dtf+dhnt receives treatment as well.” 

he defendant is tall, dressed in a suit and his hands are cuffed 7 behind hi; back. He is up from County Jail for a bail heating. He 

is the only Caucasian I have seen in my four weeks of observation 

of Domestic Violence Court and it doesn’t look like bail (or any kind of 

release) is on the horizon. There are several possibilities available for him 

and he has access to homes in both Westchester County and in 

Connecticut. The judge, however, seems reluctant to release him until 

those possibilities are nailed down, until a physical address can be agreed 

upon and to which the defendant will commit. Until then, jurisdictions 

being what they are, the defendant will return to jail for at lmt one mqre 

week where lie may work‘d little bit more on his options. It’s not the avail-; 

ability of ball money, t!e‘@y. It’s the principle. And until he shows sq&e; 

acceptance of his situatlon and is willing ta address the severity of &e 

charges, he’s not going anywhere. 

“Some might view the fact that we need a Domestic Violence Court as 

a sad commentary on the world we live in. 1 see it as a positive eKect, as 

society saying that family is the core of our community,” Pirto conclud&. 

“We’ve got to make sure that they are solid or, if the family itself does nor 

survive, that the individual survives. By making the crimina justice system 

easier for victims to negotiate and, in addition to incarcerating a defendant, providing treatment to him, I think we make it a better world for 

everyone. I don’t see it a~ a negative; I see it as a positive. I think it is a 

question of time. We’d come out of the Dark Ages with respect to these 

,issues. 

“ln 1978, when J first started prosecuting these $aes, the frrst;qugtion 

in most jurors’ minds was, ‘What did she do to make him so an&?’ We’ve 

,come a long way since then ... and I see us getting to the next level where 

there will be an understanding and respect of individuals.” 

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.
Monday, October 16,2000 NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL/LONG ISLAND EDITION 

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.
Monday, October 16,2000 NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL/LONG ISLAND EDITION 

SufTolk Domestic Violence Part Opens 

Conlinued from page LI-1 

also fails under the court's jurisdictioii. 

in addition, the DV Court presides over felony-level charges of criniinai contempt 

arising lroni a violation of an order of pro. 

tection. 

Located in the district court wing of the 

Cohalan Court Complex in Central isiip, 

which is a different building from Faniiiy 

Court. tile court in four weeks of operation has heard about 400 cases, with the 

heaviest tally at 44 in one day. 

Consistent Justice 

An advantage touted by proponents of 

the DV court is the abillty to maintain 

consistency. Having only one judge presiding over all cases helps eliminate disparate rulings that often occur when 

defendants come before different judges 

in the same court or dlfferent courts such as Family, County or Supreme Court. 

The theory is that defendants who 

have already been sentenced on domestic violence charges with their current 

mate or previous partner will be subjected to a greater degree of accountability if 

they reappear. 

But attorney Peggy Foy. who has 

worked for Legal Aid for five years, said 

the court is not a "prosecutor's venue." 

Dealing with the same iegai players 

every day also helps in advising her 

clients. Ms. Foy said. She said the new arrangement provides more give-andtake in allowing time for either side to 

interview possible wltnesses or the com- plainant. 

"These cases are not black and white," 

Ms. Foy explained. "They're three dimensional. There's usually some button-push- ing going on and there are a lot of 

dynamics involved." 

Suffolk County DV court ais0 includes a resource coordinator, Victoria T. Croce, 

who reviews each case and assists Judge 

Fitzglbbon in keeping current. 

Ms. Foy is the only Legal Ald attorney 

working the court. Four assistant district 

attorneys from the Suffolk County Dlstrict 

Attorney's domestic violence unlt prosecute there. 

Lawyers Plus 

But making a DV court successful 

Iequires more than attorneys. Two victims' advocates from area service agencies are always on hand, in addition to a 

probation officer in the courtroom to act as defendant monltors and to assess com- pliance wlth court orders. 

Aiso unique is the court's use of a Judicial hearing officer to monitor compliance 

with the terms of a defendant's sentencing. Convicted defendants on probation 

wlll meet wlth Judge Alfred Lama, a for- mer Suffolk Supreme Court justice, to 

ensure conditions of sentencing are met. 

An integral part of the court's objective is directing both delendants and com- plaints to appropriate social service agen- cies. A typical sentence may Include 

incarceratton and enrollment in batterers' program and substance abuse treatment as part of parole. Services are 

available through the Sulfolk County probatlon department and area nonproflt 

organizations. 

Availability of social services goes to 

the heart of the DV's purpose: to dispense 

justice like any criminal court but to sup 

ply resources and treatment In an attempt 

to stem the tide of domestic violence. 

Domestic Unrest 

In 1999, a total 0132,034 domestic incidents were reported In Suffolk County, .according to the Suffolk County Police 

Department. Of those reported, domestic 

violence occurred In 60 percent, or 

19,017, of those cases, the police department's figures siiow. Sixty-eight percent 

of the conipiainarits were females. 

Statistics in 1998 were siniilar, with a total of 32,281 domestic violence incidents. Cieiider composition and occurrence ratios were nearly identical to 1999. 

Wliile this year's figures are not available, Sergeant Linda Cicalese, cornnianding officer of Suffolk County's domestic 

violence and elder abuse section, said 

that arrests have risen dramatically since 

March, when a niandatory arrest policy 

lor misdemeanors was instituted in the 

coullty. The bulk of tlie cases handled by the 

Sullolk County DV court have been 

siphoned from the Family Court calendar. 

Officials said it is too early to tell if tile new court will help lighten the ioad significantly and help speed cases through 

Family Court. Eider abuse cases and child 

abuse cases are not within the court's 

jurisdiction. 

Kings Model 

The Suflolk DV court was modeled alter 

the Brooklyn DV Court, which, when 

established in 1996, was tile first in New 

York and the first felony DV Court in the 

country. 

Justice John M. Leventhal. who was tile 

first judge to preside over tlie Kings County DV court, was tlie keynote speaker at 

the Suffolk court's dedication at a ceremony on Oct. 6. 

Justice Leventhal noted that the Kings 

County DV court had cut the rate for vie 

lation of probatlon in half 01 tliat for the 

general felony probatlon population by 

requiring probationers to return every 

two months. He said that the dismissal 

rate is less tlian 5 percent, though the 

overall domestic violence disniissai rate 

is notoriously high due to reluctance of 

the witnesses to testify. Justice Leventhal also pointed out that 

Kings County had suffered no fatalities on any pending case In the part. "I am ever mindful that we are always a heartbeat 

away from a tragedy," he said. "That is 

why I use many tools to let defendants 

know that I am watching them." 

Suffolk County has suffered six fatalities in domestic violence cases in the past 

five years, reported Keri Herzog, chief 

attorney lor the Suffolk County Distrlct 

Attorney's domestic violence unlt. Before 

thei: deaths, no charges had been lodged 

against their partners more severe than a misdemeanor, she added, 

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.
APR-27-01 l0:06 FR0M:CENTER FOR COURT 

d 

I D : 2 1 2 39 713985 PAGE 2/2 

THE NEW YORK TIMES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15,2001 

1 

PUBLIC LlVES 

His Specialty and His Burden: Domestic Violence 

By LYNDA RICHARDSON 

T is impressive to war& Judge John 

M. Leventhal transform his pQrSOntI I so completely. Re is standing in hue 

Brooltlyn counroom, the first ul the 

country to handle felony domestic violencz cases exclusivuly. 

Judge LeventhRl 1s oif duty for an 

interview, talking fast with tinges of a 

Bronx accant. He comes across BS gunrle and thoughtful, a family man who Is a coach for hu two Wyc‘ basketball ,and 

bwebull teams. The& he recites the 

spiel that abusers hear When b6 order3 

them to stay way from their victims. 

Suddenly. he IS the grim reaper. 

“Mr. Smith. thls is my order 01 

protection, nor your wife’s or your girlfriend’s:’ th& S?-year-ald judge says 

sternly, his face clouding over. “If she 

invites you over for dinner tomorrow 

rughr., it will be he most expenuive 

dinner you nave gaten because the next 

night, you will be eating in jail. “And the name of rhe carje is, ‘rhe 

Pcoplo ot the State of New York crgai~st 

Mr. Smith,‘ noL ‘Mrs. Smith against Mr. 

Smirk’ and the district attorney is prosg Che ‘case, not your wile,” the w finishes. hls voice softening as he 

.R?; to his kinder, gentle self. 

On a recent afternoon, Judge Levrnthal was showurg off the courtroom 

that b ha:, presided over since it opened 

in June 1996. It has become a model for 

orher courts across the country. Thouah 

perfectly nondescript, the plice often crackles 

with ugly tension and complicated emotionu. The 

threat of violence is always lurking. 

There are women tesrifying or beggwg for 

mercy a1 behalt of rbe men who hove beaten or 

shot Them. Somethes, the women are scared of 

rutriburion; other thes they are genuinely attached. There are vicums who recant thelr tautimonies, regardless of thelr veracity, and thosri 

wha stay with banerers though they are very 

likely to be battered again. The judge poinis out that studies show that wornen are at a 75 percent greater risk of being 

killaci when they leave an abuser. “I don’t judge 

someom for not being B strong person,” he says. 

shalriiig hls head. 

Judge Leventhal says the work is getting to 

him. Hc has thinning brown hair and a boxor‘s 

build from Lhu early 1970’s, when nc competed in 

“You can’t escape from the subtle pressures 

just because you’re not in court. I’m not 

relaxed. Izm never relaxed. Someone, 

somewhere, is always plotting to do 

something, I just don’t know who or whai,” 

JUDGE JOHN M. UVENTHAL 

Golden Gloves tournaments. 

Walking back to his chambers tho other 

afternoon, the judge was saying that he found it 

harder to slip back to his ald self at the end of the 

warlday. He watches rhe avening’s local now, 

001 as a passive vlewer, but as a particrpat to 

learn if the crimes mvolve any of his Brooklyn cases. He limits family vacations so that he can 

keep tabs on defendants. 

f3r says, “What haunts me is the specror, chc 

prospecr ~Dul, God forbld. therb’s 8 fatality or a 

terrible beating and I did not do wh&t someme said, because I thought what someone said was 

incorrect or not necessary. I would think I am to 

blame. 

“I think I’ve bcome a little mor6 serious, 

grlm You can’t escape from the subtle pressures 

just because you’re not in court. I’m not relaxed. 

I’m never reiixod. Someone, somewhere. is always plotting to do Something. I jilst 

aon’t laow who or what. It takes an 

emotional roll.” 

In his chambers, the walls are lined 

with photographs of family and fnwds. 

There is one of him from many years 

ago, with a mustache and longish hair. 

plapg In the New York Rugby Club. 

There are plcturor of his sonsLs, ~I?S 10 

and 12, and his We, Ellen, who is chief 

lawyer for the Supreme Court’s law 

department in Brooklyn. They have 

been martled for 13 years. The judge 

daesn’t want to say where tbe faillily lives because of h~s work. 

UDGE LEVENTHAL says he dways 

knew thar ne would perform some kind of public sennce. He juSt w7~9n’t J sure whar He and two sisters WWY 

raised in Riverdale in che B~OIX Uis 

father ww an Bccountant and hls rnother was a hornem‘akzkar. The judEe chugl11 

math in a South Bronx mddk school lor 3 time. It was dot until he 601 his masLer’y degree in urban aftairs at Hunrer 

Coilqc ant he realized he was moat io 

be a lawyer. A grduate of Brooklyii 

Law School, he was in private practice 

for 15 years m Brooklyn before being elccrod to the State Supreme Courr in 

1094. 

When he WBS ofiered the assignment in the domestic violfmce COUTT. 

Judge Leventhd says he jumped ar Lbe 

chance, even though b hew practically zilch about the subiect 

’1 wanted u1 get back u, my roots,” he say:;. 

“Most people who bccarnw lawyers want io Qo 

~ome good for sociery and lo* heir way. We 

realize we have to pay OUT bus; your bcLu need 

diapers. You’ve goof M put food on the table am 

you rake a lot of dlffcrent cases So WI~ you get 

cases where you can do some good, you cb6rish 

them.” Now. one thg Judge Leventhal knowb for 

certaui E, that there are M ewy answers. 

The judge 1s S@MUS, but he no longer carries 

Uu burden of these felony casu6 alom. A second 

Brmkiyn court, pr~idecl over by Judge Marrhcw 

J. D’Emic, was added in 1998 

’These days, Judge Levmrhal IS thinkurg that 

it may be time to move on. Whap he rook the job 111 

199G, he says, he was asked to do It for a year. Tf he 

leaves. ho says, he mll have no regrers “AS much as I’ve given co rhiy court,” he 93ys. ‘*it has @veil 

me a lor.” 

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.
Appendix C: 0 Population Identification, Sample Selection, 

and Analyses of Possible Selection Biases 

We had to use several different sources to obtain a reliable listing of the population of cases eligible for 

inclusion in our study, since none of the sources was completely reliable in itself. The population of cases was 

identified by compiling four sources: 

The District Attorney’s Office’s Management Information System, which catalogued cases identified 

as felony domestic violence in the Early Case Assessment Bureau from 1994 through 1997. Early explorations of this database showed that it included a number of cases which were not in fact domestic 

violence. This raised the troubling possibility that reliance on this as the sole source could exclude 

many domestic violence cases, if cases were also mistakenly excluded from the database. Reasons for 

possible exclusion were unknown, but we feared that any systematic exclusion factors would lead to 

biased sampling on our part. 

The District Attorney’s Office’s Domestic Violence Bureau’s log book of pending felonies, a chronological record of felony cases recorded as victims came in to speak with an ADA about testifying 

before a grand jury. This source had the drawback of excluding cases in which the victim did not 

come in to prepare for the grand jury. In addition, upkeep of the book ceased part way through 1995. 

The DA’s Domestic Violence Bureau’s trial list of open felony cases. This list was updated two to 

three times per week and ran from early 1995 through the end of 1996. 

Office of Court Administration records of cases flagged as domestic violence at arrest, from 1995 

through 1997. However, identification of cases as domestic violence may have been incomplete in the 

early period. 

Our compilation of cases from these sources identified 854 possibly eligible cases. Application of the 

following selection criteria reduced this number to a final population of 438 eligible cases: 

A11 cases must be indicted on felony charges from 1995 through 1997; 

All cases must be prosecuted by the DA’s Domestic Violence Bureau; 

No cases which were consolidated with a non-domestic violence: case were eligible; 

All cases must be adjudicated in the Supreme Court; 

Cases during the first six months of the FDVC’s operation (June to December, 1996) were ineligible 

because the Court model was not yet fully in place; 

Cases which began in another Supreme Court part but were transferred to the FDVC were ineligible 

(pre/post crossover); 

Cases determined not to involve domestic violence were ineligible; 

Cases listed in only one of the four above sources were not pursued because of a low likelihood that 

they would prove eligible; 

Cases in which the files were repeatedly unavailable were dropped from the samples; and 

Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts 

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 Cases which were superceded by or consolidated with another felony domestic violence case were not 

included in the sample as separate cases, because the case with which they were associated often was 

included in our sample. 

Of the final population of 438 cases, we selected into our sample and completed in-depth case file reviews 

for 229. All cases identified as eligible for the pre sample were selected into the sample and reviewed (all of 

the 93 eligible cases during 1995 and early 1996). Resource limitations prevented us from completing file 

reviews on all the eligible FDVC cases. Instead, we reviewed all the non-CC-only cases which were indicted 

during approximately the first half of 1997 (N=109 of a possible 253 such cases in 1997, or 43%). For the 

CC-only cases, we reviewed all those indicted during the first four months or so of 1997 (N=27 of a possible 

92 such cases in 1997, or about 30%). 

Some data are available for assessing possible selection biases in the FDVC and (3C-only samples. The 

only meaningful data available on all cases, both reviewed and not, are criminal history and recidivism data 

from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). Analyses of these data indicate that there are very 

few differences between cases selected into the sample for full review and those not sampled and reviewed. 

Criminal contempt-only defendants who were sampled and reviewed were marginally more likely to have a 

felony conviction and a drug conviction in their criminal history than CC-only cases that were not reviewed, 

but no other statistically significant differences on criminal history or recidivism up to 18 months after sentencing (or release) were found. Please see Table 22 for a summary of these findings. 

Speoahzed Felony Dornest~ Vfolence Courts 

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.
~ 

'ABLE 22. Analyses for Possible Sample Selection Biases: Criminal History and Recidivism Comparisons of FDVC and Criminal Contempt Only Cases: Sampled vs. 

Unsampleb Eligible Cases 

FDVC 

No Case Case 

Review Review 

A) Prior Criminal History 

Any criminal conviction 

Any felony conviction 

Any misdemeanor conviction 

Any violent felony offense conviction 

Any criminal contempt conviction 

Any drug conviction 

B) Criminal Recidivism 

1. Recidivism within 1 Year Post-Sentence 

Any arrest 

Arrest for a violent felony offense 

Arrest for criminal contempt 

2. Recidivism within 1 1/2 Years Post-SentenceD 

Any arrest 

Arrest for a violent felony offense 

Arrest for criminal contempt 

(N = 144) 

58% 

44% 

27% 

26% 

28% 

42% 

(N = 88) 

36% 

7 % 

9 % 

(N = 70) 

46% 

10% 

1 1 % 

(N = 109) 

66'Yo 

4 1 '?!o 

51% 

25"/0 

30'26 

28"o 

(N = 79) 

40/3 

6% 

(N = 68) 

29?'0 

37% 

6% 

lo=& 

CC-only Cases 

No Case Case 

Review Review 

(N = 65) 

80% 

40%' 

74% 

26% 

63% 

28%' 

(N = 49) 

39% 

0 Yo 

29% 

(N = 41) 

54% 

0 Yo 

39% 

(N = 27) 

85% 

59% 

67% 

37% 

56% 

45% 

(N = 20) 

35% 

10% 

15% 

(N = 16) 

50% 

13% 

19% 

+ p 

Source: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). 

State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). 

.10 * p c .05 '* p c.01 *** p < .001 (2-tailed t-test I Comparison is always with the post-FDVC sample (middle column)) 

For defendants whose current domestic violence cases are dismissed, the recidivism tirne begins immediately post-disposition. 

For defendants sentenced to jail or prison, post-disposition time is calculated to begin after their estimated release from 

incarceration. This is so as not to under-state the propensity for recidivism among defendants incarcerated in the immediate postsentence period. See Table 6, footnote c for the methodology used to estimate the time that defendants with different types of 

sentences were incarcerated. Note that these recidivism statistics are only calculated for cases released for the full recidivism 

period under study (e.g., 1 year or 18 months respectively). E.g., The cases of defendant!; still incarcerated as of the analysis are 

defined as missing. 

Specialized felony Dornesllc Violence Courts 

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.