DOI: 10.3886/icpsr04409.v1
title: Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases with Reluctant Victims in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1994-1995
title: Version 1

description: Officials in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, introduced two
 experiments designed to provide answers to questions of how to deal
 with victim reluctance in domestic violence cases. Two projects funded
 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluated these Milwaukee
 domestic violence experiments. The first project examined the
 effectiveness of a specialized domestic violence court that opened in
 September 1994. The primary intent of the specialized domestic
 violence court was to speed up the disposition of cases. The second
 project examined the impact of a change in the district attorney's
 (DA's) screening policy that admitted more cases into the special
 court, which became effective January 1, 1995. The liberalized
 prosecutorial policy was intended to determine whether arrests that
 the DA normally rejected for prosecution because victims failed to
 attend the prosecutor's charging conference could be prosecuted
 successfully none the less. The researchers collected data from three
 time periods: (1) prior to September 1994, (2) between September 1994
 and January 1995, and (3) post-Janurary 1995. For the first
 experiment, several samples were selected from court and DA records to
 assess the impact of the introduction of the special domestic violence
 court and its impact after the change in the DA's charging policy.
 These samples of domestic violence cases (court samples) filed by the
 prosecutor included: (1) 237 cases from Summer 1994, (2) 190 cases
 from Fall 1994, and (3) 242 cases from Spring 1995. For the second
 experiment, three additional samples (complaint room samples) were
 collected of domestic cases declined by the prosecutor to determine
 how victim attendance at the charging conference and other factors
 affected the decision to prosecute: (1) 152 cases from Summer 1994,
 (2) 155 cases from Fall 1994, and (3) 152 cases from Spring 1995.
 Variables in this dataset include if the case was filed, type of
 charges, number of prior misdemeanors, number of prior felonies,
 number of misdemeanors after, number of felonies after, number of
 felony convictions, number of misdemeanor convictions, number of
 subpoenas, number of judicial body attachment orders, whether the
 victim was cooperative, if the victim testified, method of
 disposition, type of disposition, time to disposition, time to
 sentencing, sentencing conditions, if the defendant received jail or
 prison time, if the defendant received probation time, number of
 months incarcerated, number of months on probation, and several date
 variables. Additional variables provide the sex of the defendant, the
 relationship between the defendant and the victim, if the victim was
injured, if the victim was intoxicated, and use of a weapon.
description: In Wisconsin, a 1987 statute made arrests
 mandatory for misdemeanor domestic violence incidents, resulting in a
 higher volume of arrests, which likely included cases more difficult
 to prosecute because of weaker evidence or less willing victims.
 Official statistics indicate that, immediately after the statute was
 enacted, as many as 90 percent of domestic violence misdemeanor
 arrests in Milwaukee were not charged by the district attorney's
 (DA's) office. By mid-1994 the DA realized that Milwaukee was
 prosecuting a smaller proportion of domestic arrests than other
 Wisconsin cities. Officials in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, introduced two
 experiments designed to provide answers to questions of how to deal
 with victim reluctance in domestic violence cases. Two projects funded
 by the National Institute of Justice evaluated these Milwaukee
 domestic violence experiments. The first project examined the
 effectiveness of a specialized domestic violence court that opened in
 September 1994. The primary intent of the specialized domestic
 violence court was to speed up the disposition of cases in order to:
 (1) reduce backlogs, (2) reduce the amount of time the victim had to
 change her mind about prosecution, thereby increasing convictions, and
 (3) reduce opportunities for pretrial violence. The second project
 examined the impact of a change in the DA's screening policy that
 admitted more cases into the special court, which became effective
 January 1, 1995. The liberalized prosecutorial policy was intended to
 determine whether arrests which the DA normally rejected for
 prosecution because victims failed to attend the prosecutor's charging
 conference could be prosecuted successfully nonetheless. To do this,
 the DA's office jettisoned the requirement that victims come to the
 complaint room, resulting in a doubling of the number of domestic
 arrests filed with the court. The second experiment focused on
 evaluating if it was in the interests of victims and in the interest
 of justice to open the intake gates wide and prosecute cases
previously thought not winnable.
description: The researchers collected data from three time
 periods: (1) prior to September 1994, which marked the start of the
 special domestic violence court, (2) between September 1994 and
 January 1995, the period after the special court began and before the
 change in the district attorney's charging policy, and (3)
 post-January 1995, after the change in the district attorney's
 charging policy. For the first experiment, several samples were
 selected from court and DA records to assess the impact of the special
 domestic violence court. Three samples of domestic violence cases
 (court samples) filed by the prosecutor were collected: (1) 237 cases
 from Summer 1994, (2) 190 cases from Fall 1994, and (3) 242 cases from
 Spring 1995. These samples allowed the researchers to examine how the
 handling of domestic violence cases changed with the introduction of
 the special court in September 1994, and how case processing changed
 again after the DA liberalized his charging policy in January
 1995. For the second experiment, three additional samples (complaint
 room samples) were collected of domestic cases declined by the
 prosecutor, which were drawn from the same time periods as the samples
 of prosecuted cases: (1) 152 cases from Summer 1994, (2) 155 cases
 from Fall 1994, and (3) 152 cases from Spring 1995. The researchers
 compared the samples of prosecuted and not prosecuted cases to
 determine how victim attendance at the charging conference and other
 factors affected the decision to prosecute during the three time
 periods. Data collection sheets for nolle processed cases were
 identical to the sheets designed for prosecuted cases except that
disposition information was omitted.
description: Variables in this dataset include type of sample,
 if the case was filed, type of charges filed against the batterer,
 number of prior misdemeanors, number of prior felonies, number of
 misdemeanors after, number of felonies after, number of felony
 convictions, number of misdemeanor convictions, number of subpoenas,
 number of judicial body attachment orders, whether the victim was
 cooperative, if the victim testified, method of disposition (trial,
 dismissed, guilty plea, diversion, other), type of disposition, time
 to disposition, time to sentencing, sentencing conditions, if the
 defendant received jail or prison time, if the defendant received
 probation time, number of months incarcerated, number of months on
 probation, and several date variables. Additional variables provide
 the sex of the defendant, the relationship between the defendant and
 the victim, if the victim was injured (none, minor, major), if the
victim was intoxicated, and use of a weapon (no, gun, knife, other).
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: none
description: Originally, the researchers intended to draw two court
 samples from case records. The baseline sample consisted of domestic
 violence cases processed in the general misdemeanor courts, prior to
 the creation of the special domestic violence court. This sample (n =
 237) consisted of every other domestic violence case adjudicated in
 the general misdemeanor courts during June, July, and August 1994.
 Only cases with odd docket numbers were sampled. Cases were those
 identified by the prosecutor's office as involving domestic violence,
 including batteries, disorderly conducts, and violations of
 restraining orders in which the parties were married, cohabitating,
 shared children in common, or were blood relatives living in the same
 household. The post-special court sample consisted of cases that
 began shortly after the opening of the special domestic violence
 court. This sample (n = 190) was comprised of every other domestic
 violence case with initial pretrial hearings held during October,
 November, and December 1994. The reseachers decided to draw a third
 sample after the prosecutor changed his charging policy after January
 1995. This sample (n = 242) consisted of every trial case scheduled
 for an initial pretrial hearing in the domestic violence court during
 February, March, and April 1995. Three complaint room samples of cases
 were collected for the same time periods. The researchers sampled
 every other case in chronological sequence, including cases declined
 by the prosecutor during June, July, and August 1994 (n = 157), cases
 declined by the prosecutor during October, November, and December 1994
 (n = 155), and cases declined by the prosecutor during January,
February, and March 1995 (n = 152).
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases with Reluctant Victims in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1994-1995
description: Domestic violence cases under the jurisdiction of the 
Milwaukee district attorney's office from Summer 1994 to Spring 1995. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: record abstractsThe projects included interviews with court
 administrators, judges, prosecution staff, and victims. The interview
data are not available as part of this collection.