3RD CIRCUIT RULES POLICE NOT LIABLE FOR FAILING TO PROTECT OFFICER'S WIFE, Lawyers USA, Boston, MA: September 24, 2007. Copyright © 2007 Dolan Media Newswires.
ABBOTT, TIMOTHY MARK CAMERON V. ABBOTT, JACQUELYN VAYE, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: November 24, 2009. Brief of Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment & Appeals Project (DV LEAP), Battered Women's Justice Project – Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Inc., National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and National Network to End Domestic Violence as Amici Curiae in support of respondent. Issue: Amici are concerned about the detrimental applications of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670 (the "Convention") to abused women and children.
ABRAMSKI V. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: June 16, 2014. Issue: Straw purchasers of guns.
ADMISSION OF EXCITED UTTERANCE TO POLICE OFFICER IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE UPHELD, summarized by Wendy J. Murphy, New England School of Law, Boston, MA: June 14, 2004. See Court of Appeals of Indiana, Aaron G. Fowler v. Indiana, No. 49A02-0310-CR-930.
ALLEYNE V. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: June 17, 2013. Issue: Defendant was convicted in federal district court of using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, which carries a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. During sentencing, defendant objected to the sentencing report that recommended a 7-year sentence, incorporating the longer minimum sentence mandated if the firearm was brandished during the crime. Defendant argued that increasing the mandatory minimum to seven years would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it was clear from the jury verdict that the jury did not make the finding of fact that he brandished the weapon and therefore any increase would be improperly based on the judge's finding of fact.
Anthony Mastroianni, & C., Appellant, v. County of Suffolk, Et Al., Respondents, 91 N.Y.2d 198, 691 N.E.2d 613, 668 N.Y.S.2d 542 (1997), December 2, 1997.
APESSOS V. MEMORIAL PRESS GROUP
Appeals Court Upholds $1 Million Award for Alleged Rape Victim, Associated Press and South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Miami, FL: December 23, 2004. Copyright © 2004 South Florida Sun-Sentinel. See Jane Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., et al.
Barney Fife Revisited: Gunless Deputy Loses Job, Denlinger, Rosenthal & Greenberg, LPA, Ohio Employment Law Letter, (volume 15, issue 9), Brentwood, TN: September 2004. Copyright © 2004 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. See Morrison v. Warren, et al.
BaZE V. REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: April 16, 2008. Issue: lethal injection for death penalty.
Blakely v. Washington
BOOTH V. HVASS (302 F.3d 849, 2002), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, St. Paul, MN.
BOWEN V. CHEUVRONT – BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NORTH DAKOTA STATE'S ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, December 21, 2007. This Brief Amicus Curiae was prepared in connection with an issue about which the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women receives many requests for assistance: a court's preclusion of words and terms in a sexual assault case. In this case, the victim and the prosecution were precluded from using the terms "victim," "assailant" and "rape."
BRIEF FOR ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTED TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS, McDonald, Otis, et al., v. City of Chicago, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: January 2010. Question presented: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. V. WHITE
Calif. Justices Clear Way for Testimony on Domestic Abuse, Mike McKee, Law.com, San Francisco, CA: August 4, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Yahoo! Inc. Copyright © 2004 NLP IP Company. See People v. Brown.
CAMRETA, BOB V. GREENE, SARAH and ALFORD, JAMES V. GREENE, SARAH, the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: January, 2011. Brief of the Battered Women's Resource Center et al. as Amici Curiae in support of respondents. Issue: Decide on parental rights when children are interviewed & examined for abuse.
City of Canton v. Harris 489 US 378 (1989), Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC.
COATES v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Baltimore, MD: August 31, 2007. Important case re: limits on hearsay statements of SANE / SAFE / SART forensic witnesses.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. GERALD A. SANDUSKY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MAKARA, EUGENE S. (APPEAL OF KIDSPEACE CORPORATION) (number 2011 MDA 2008), Pennsylvania Superior Court, August 26, 2009. Decision: due process required for third parties in criminal cases and guardians ad litem MUST be appointed by court for child victims. Case summary by Kathryn Schwartz, 2009.
COMMONWEALTH V. BARROS (disposition), Appeals Court of Massachusetts, 2013. Ruling: An expert may rely on hearsay as long as it is independently admissible and a permissible basis for an expert to use in formulating an opinion.
COMMONWEALTH V. SHANLEY
COOPER V. DISTRICT COURT – P.3D – 2006 WL 976894, Alaska Court of Appeals, Anchorage, AK: April 14, 2006. In this case, the victim of domestic violence, Cynthia Cooper, contended that the defendant had been illegally sentenced to a treatment program that was not one of the batterer's treatment programs approved by the Alaska Department of Corrections and appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeals held that, as a victim of crime, Ms. Cooper did not have standing to independently seek appellate review of a substantive sentencing decision by a trial court. The court specifically left open the question of whether a victim had standing to seek appellate review of the violation of a victim's procedural rights, such as the right to be heard at sentencing. Because the court also held that the sentence had not been illegal, it did not reach the issue of what the court would do if the records had revealed collusion on the part of the prosecutor, court and defendant to circumvent the sentencing law.
Court Restores Verdict Against Negligent Sheriff, Bob Anez, Associated Press, Livingston Enterprise, Livingston, MT: May 5, 2004. See 03-567 (05-05-04) Massee v. Thompson 2004 MT 121.
Court Ruling is Mixed on Sex Harassment, Stephen Henderson and Larry Fish, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA: June 15, 2004. Copyright © 2004 The Philadelphia Inquirer. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders.
Court Upholds Ex-Wife’s Right to Complain, Rebecca Cook, Associated Press, July 8, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Associated Press. See Suggs v. Hamilton.
Crawford V. Washington
CRIME VICTIM LAW UPDATE, National Crime Victim Law Institute, Portland, OR: July - September 2009. Copyright © 2009 National Crime Victim Law Institute.
CRUCIAL VICTORY IN THE FIGHT TO STOP HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ABUSE VICTIMS, Legal Momentum, New York, NY.
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON AND HAMMON V. INDIANA
DAWN FUENTES V. REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Courts, November 8, 2013. Issue: Should the Housing Authority hearing officer consider domestic violence as a potentially mitigating factor before terminating Section 8 benefits? Note: Jane Doe, Inc. and National Network to End Domestic Violence filed an amicus brief in this case.
DEAD WIVES TALKING, Wendy Murphy, Murphy's Law, August 17, 2009.
DECISION OF INTEREST: NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, BRONX COUNTY; CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR HARASSMENT NOT BARRED BY FAMILY COURT IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT, New York Law Journal, New York, NY: December 2, 2004. Copyright © 2004 ALM Properties, Inc.
Decision of Interest; New York County Supreme Court; Noncooperation With Pre-Sentence Investigation Justifies Enhanced Sentence for Plea Condition’s Breach, New York Law Journal, New York, NY: August 8, 2005. Copyright © 2005 ALM Properties, Inc.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Supreme Court of the United States, 489 U.S. 189: February 22, 1989.
Divided Appeals Panel Affirms Domestic Violence Order, Ertel Berry, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, Raleigh, NC: September 25, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Dolan Media Newswires.
DoE V. UNITED STATES, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach, FL: June 18, 2013. Issue: The government entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, alleged to have committed federal sex offenses against minor-victims ~ including knowingly recruiting, enticing and obtaining persons under the age of eighteen years to engage in commercial sex acts. The government made the deal without first conferring with or notifying the minor-victims. Two of the minor-victims petitioned the court to set aside the agreement on the ground that the government's conducted violated their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, including their rights to confer, to be treated with fairness, to receive timely notice of relevant proceedings, and to receive information about the right to restitution.
Domestic Violence Agency Wins Missouri Supreme Court Protection of Records, State ex rel. Hope House, Inc., Relator v. Commissioner Molly M. Merrigan, Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Family Court Division, Respondent; Opinion II. Section 455.220: Strict Confidentiality for Domestic Violence Victims; written by Judge Richard B. Teitelman, Jefferson City, MO: April 13, 2004.
Domestic Violence Cases See New Test, Robert Tharp, Dallas Morning News Dallas, TX: July 5, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Belo Corporation.
Domestic Violence Centers Retain Confidentiality Right, Emily Umbright, St. Louis Daily Record / St. Louis Countian, St. Louis, MO: April 14, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Dolan Media Newswires.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM FIGHTS FOR HER NAME AT THE SUPREME COURT – CASE ASKS WHO TRULY ENFORCES RESTRAINING ORDERS, Jordan Weissmann, The National Law Journal, New York, NY: March 30, 2010. Copyright © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM SEEKING A RESTRAINING ORDER IS PROTECTED FROM RETALIATION BY HER EMPLOYER UNDER OREGON LAW, Victim Rights Law Center, Portland, OR: April 7, 2008.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM ~ CHANGE OF NAME, Bob Durst, New Jersey Law Blog, Stark & Stark Attorneys at Law, Lawrenceville and Marlton, NJ: March 26, 2008. Copyright © 2008 Stark & Stark.
DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE V. AMY UNKNOWN SUPREME COURT RESOURCES (amicus brief and case history).
Each Threatening Phone Call Violated Protective Order, Top Court Affirms, Alisa Bralove, The Daily Record, Baltimore, MD: June 18, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Dolan Media Newswires. See David Triggs, Jr. v. State of Maryland.
Federal Law Protects Battered Women From Housing Discrimination, COURT RULES, Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY: April 1, 2005.
FRIENDLY HOUSE, ET AL V. MICHAEL B. WHITING, ET AL –– PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF, Legal Momentum, New York, NY: June 11, 2010. In support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction to invalidate Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070.
Gantt V. Security USA, INC.
GEORGIA V. RANDOLPH
HAYES V. GIBBS, First District Court of Appeals, Cincinnati, OH: March 14, 2008. Appellate decision reversing a trial court that refused to consider family support in a civil protection order case.
HINTON V. ALABAMA (summary), Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: February 24, 2014. Question: Did the Alabama courts properly apply the rule established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, which stated that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if the trial attorney’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable chance the outcome of the trial was affected?
J.M., PETITIONER-APPELLANT V. MARK BRISENO, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE (No. 1-09-1073), Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Chicago, IL: June 3, 2011. Note: Appellate decision reversing trial court requiring corroboration for sexual assault.
J.S V. J.F. (A-2552-08T2), Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Trenton, NJ: December 10, 2009. Issue: Domestic violence rights for paid escorts.
JANE DOES #1 AND #2 V. UNITED STATES, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach, FL: September 26, 2011. Issue: Victims' rights are enforceable before prosecutor files charges.
JUSTICES SAY COPS CAN ENTER, STOP FIGHT, Thomas Burr, The Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake, UT: May 23, 2006. Copyright © 2006 The Salt Lake Tribune. See Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, et al.
KOVALESKI V. STATE OF FLORIDA (No. SC09-536), the Supreme Court of Florida, Tallahassee, FL: October 25, 2012. Issue: Closing the courtroom during the testimony of a child-victim.
'LARIAM DEFENSE' REJECTED IN CRIMINAL FRAUD TRIAL FOLLOWING HEARING, The Mealey's Emerging Drugs & Devices (volume 7, issue 12), Philadelphia, PA: June 20, 2002. Copyright © 2002 LexisNexis. See The People of the State of Illinois v. Anthony B. Mertz.
LEAR V. JAMROGOWICZ, Montana Supreme Court, Helena, MT: June 4, 2013. Issue: The victim sought a civil restraining order against defendant for stalking.
LENAHAN, JESSICA V. USA
LESLIE V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S., U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Washington, DC: July 8, 2010. Issue: Right to notice of free legal services for immigration court.
LRM, AIRMAN FIRST CLASS (E-3) V. KASTENBERG, LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOSHUA E. (No. 13-5006), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Washington, DC: July 18, 2013. Issue: The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) participated in these proceedings as amicus curiae in support of the victim’s petitions before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. NCVLI argued that the respective courts must recognize the victim’s right to be heard personally and through counsel on factual and legal matters regarding the admissibility of her private information at Military Rules of Evidence 412 and 513 hearings because: (1) military victims have independent standing to assert and to seek enforcement of their rights through counsel; (2) the military judge’s discretionary powers do not extend to excluding participants’ views from consideration once standing is established; and (3) discrete moments of victim participation do not result in a per se violation of a defendants’ fair trial rights, do not create a per se appearance of impartiality, and do not implicate defendants’ confrontation rights.
Maria Teresa Macias v. Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Ihde
MARTIN V. HOWARD UNIVERSITY
MARYLAND V. KING
MASS. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT UPHOLDS 209A ABUSE-PREVENTION ORDER AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE MAN, Eric T. Berkman, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Boston, MA: January 28, 2008. Copyright © 2008 Dolan Media Newswires.
MASSACHI V. AHL SERVICES, INC., ET AL AND CITY OF NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Trenton, NJ: November 15, 2007. The New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled that a city can be sued for the murder of a college student after a 911 operator and police dispatcher mishandled a call reporting her abduction.
MCGAUGHEY, ALEXANDRIA V. District of COLUMBIA, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, DC: 2011. Amicus Brief of DC Rape Crisis Center, Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Victim Rights Law Center, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence and New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault in support of the appellant. Issue: Amici are advocating for Plaintiff's rights and to ensure that future victims of sexual violence in the District of Columbia are able to gather evidence against their attackers without police interference or other demeaning or disrespectful behavior from law enforcement.
MCSWANE AND HAYS V. BLOOMINGTON HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND JEAN M. EELMA, MD, Indiana Court of Appeals, Indianapolis, IN: March 12, 2008. A hospital that treated a suspected victim of domestic violence can be sued for discharging her into the care of her former husband who subsequently murdered her, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
MILLBROOK V. UNITED STATES (No. 11-10362), Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: March 27, 2013. This unanimous decision will have a major impact on inmates' ability to file lawsuits against federal correctional officers for acts of sexual abuse that occur in federal custodial facilities.
MN Court of Appeals Allows Testimony on Battered-Woman Syndrome, Michelle Lore, The Minnesota Lawyer, Minneapolis, MN: September 6, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Dolan Media Newswires. See State of Minnesota v. Vance.
Nicholson v. Williams and Nicholson v. Scoppetta
OHIO COURT TOSSES PROTECTIVE ORDER RULING, Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, CentreDaily.com, September 24, 2003. The State of Ohio vs. Lucas [State v. Lucas, 100 Ohio St.3d 1, 2003-Ohio-4778.] The Ohio Supreme Court ruled "An individual who is the protected subject of a temporary protection order may not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the restrainee under the protection order in violating said order."
PEOPLE V. COGSWELL, HENRY IVAN, Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, San Diego, CA: October 31, 2007.
PEOPLE V. MAYS, RENAL ALVIN, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Los Angeles, CA: February 15, 2011. Finding: Pregnancy due to rape is "great bodily injury" [among other issues].
PEOPLE V. MACKEY, ARVIN, Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, San Francisco, CA: 2011. Issue: Can a defendant's "mental disability" impair his ability to correctly ascertain a victim's consent.
PEOPLE V. ORTIZ, ISAAC, Court of Appeal of California, First District, San Francisco, CA: May 16, 2008. This case offers up the possibility of prosecutors routinely making gender-specific arguments about rape myths even without the use of an expert.
PEOPLE V. TANCREDI, RALPH, Supreme Court of New York, 9th Judicial District, Westchester County, White Plains, NY: March 6, 2008. Issue: Court appoints independent third-party attorney for victim in criminal domestic violence case.
PEOPLE V. TOHOM (No. 2011-07111), Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, Brooklyn, NY: July 10, 2013. Issue: Defendant was convicted of predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child—his daughter—and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in permitting the child-victim to be accompanied by a comfort dog during her testimony. Defendant argued that the state law providing guidelines for the fair treatment of child witnesses did not authorize the presence of comfort dogs at a criminal trial, that the trial court’s interpretation of the statute so as to permit such presence improperly invaded the domain of the legislature, and that the dog's presence violated defendant's due process right to a fair trial and impaired his right to confront witnesses against him. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in failing to make a finding of necessity before allowing the presence of the comfort dog.
PEOPLE V. TURNER
PEOPLE V. WITHERSPOON, Appellate Court of Illinois, 4th District, Springfield, IL: February 26, 2008. Issue: Multiple convictions of attempted rape for one episode.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN V. BAILEY, Court of Appeals of Michigan, October 15, 2009. Issue: Admissibility of expert testimony re: delayed disclosures.
PEUGH V. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: June 10, 2013. Issue: Defendant, convicted of bank fraud after a jury trial, appealed his sentence of 70 months' imprisonment. Defendant argued that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced him to a term within the guideline range under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the more lenient version in effect at the time the crimes were committed.
PLAINS COMMERCE BANK V. LONG FAMILY LAND & CATTLE CO., INC. – BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Sacred Circle-National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women, et al., March 2008.
POLICE MAY BE SUED FOR NOT INTERVENING IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES, John O’Connor, Associated Press, New York, NY: April 20, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. See Moore v. Green and DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, Illinois Supreme Court, Springfield, IL.
PRIVATE HOUSING COMPANY WON'T EVICT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS AFTER ACLU LAWSUIT, American Civil Liberties Union, Detroit, MI: February 26, 2008. See Tanica Lewis v. Northend Village Management Systems, Inc. and Jacqueline Waters. Settlement and other legal documents.
Protective Order Respondent can be Charged with Violating the Order for Having His Attorney Contact the Victim – State of New Hampshire v. Steven Kidder (150 NH 600; 843 A.2d 312; 2004 NH Lexis 37), New Hampshire Supreme Court, Concord, NH: February 27, 2004.
RAYBURN V. WADY INDUSTRIES, INC., AND LORI J. FEY, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Eastern Division, Cedar Rapids, IA: April 10, 2008. Issue: Workplace wrongful discharge claim – employee fired for enforcing protective order.
REFLECTIONS ON SCOTUS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY, Stephanie Pettit, Economic Security Blog, Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC: July 10, 2014.
SERVICE WOMEN'S ACTION NETWORK AND VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI (petition for review), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, DC: April 29, 2014. Issue: SWAN and the Vietnam Veterans of America are suing the VA for ignoring a rulemaking petition filed last year. This rulemaking petition requires VA to review its regulations on processing claims related to Military Sexual Trauma. In disregarding the petition VA has broken the law and must now explain to a federal judge why it continues to ignore the needs of veterans and leave the current broken claims system in place ~ a system that continues to deny disability benefits to thousands of military sexual violence survivors year after year.
SHOT BY EX, SHE WINS $10M SUIT, Chrisena Coleman, Daily News, New York, NY: April 11, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Daily News, L.P.
S.S. AND P.L. V. ROC ALEXANDER AND THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, Seattle, WA: February 11, 2008. This case explains why schools can't legitimately maintain that a sexual assault policy has nothing to do with Title IX. Indeed, failure to appreciate the legal relationship enhances the risk a school will be subjected to in legal proceedings and sanctions under OCR / DOE's jurisdiction, as well as providing some evidence of a school's "deliberate indifference," which could add to a school's liability exposure.
Stalking Defies Boundaries, Court Decides, Howard Pankratz, The Denver Post, Denver, CO: March 18, 2005. Copyright © 2005 The Denver Post.
State High Court Takes Broad View of Mediation Privilege, Kenneth Ofgang, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Los Angeles, CA: July 13, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Metropolitan News Company. See Rojas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
State OF ARKANSAS v. BLANDIN, JOSE, Arkansas Supreme Court, Little Rock, AR: May 10, 2007.
State OF CONNECTICUT V. BLAKE, Appellate Court of Connecticut, Hartford, CT: March 18, 2008. Issue: Important case on privileged records of victims with serious psych history. The judge declines in camera review.
State OF DELAWARE v. PIERCE (case summary), summarized by Jennifer Cochran, Center for Law and Social Responsibility, the Domestic and Sexual Violence Project at the New England School of Law, Boston, MA: April 12, 2008. This case involves a post-conviction trial motion in which the defendant argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's use of the words "victim", "sexual assault" and "crime scene" during trial.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. SHEPHERD, BRIAN A. (number 2008-095), Supreme Court of New Hampshire, August 4, 2009. Case summary by Kathryn Schwartz, 2009. Issues: discovery / production, evidence, privacy.
State of NEW JERSEY v. Guenther, N. J. Lexis 941 2004. Issue: false allegations.
STATE OF OHIO V. CARSWELL, MICHAEL
STATE OF OREGON V. RYAN, JOHN NORMAN, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem, OR: September 9, 2011. Issue: violating a stalking protective order by communicative acts.
State of RHODE ISLAND v. STRAVATo, JOSEPH, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Providence, RI: December 7, 2007. Important case on discovery obligation re: victim-impact statements prepared prior to trial.
State OF VERMONT v. BRINK, RYAN J., Supreme Court Docket #2006-517, Supreme Court of Vermont, Montpelier, VT: March 14, 2008. Issue: Ruling on ability of prosecutor to allow victim to write answers down and then the prosecutor reads them into the record.
State OF VERMONT v. SHEPHERD (No. 2010-336), Supreme Court of Vermont, Montpelier, VT: October 26, 2012. Issue: Relocation expenses ordered in restitution.
State OF WASHINGTON v. BECKLIN, ANDRE PAUL, Washington Supreme Court, Olympia, WA: May 1, 2008. Issue: Instructions to jury on third party stalking. See dissenting opinion.
State OF WASHINGTON v. WEBB, MICHAEL KENNETH, Washington Supreme Court, Olympia, WA: October 29, 2009. Issue: Conviction and restitution order NOT abated ab initio when defendant dies during pendancy of appeal.
State OF WISCONSIN v. SCHAEFER, RONALD, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Madison, WI: April 2, 2008. Issue: Defendant has no right to "discovery" or even "production" prior to preliminary hearing.
State v. ALFARO [128 So.3d 515, LaApp. 5 Cir. (2013)], Sheba Varughese, Sexual Violence Legal News Online, New England Law School, Boston, MA: February 2014. Nature of the case: Aggravated rape and sexual abuse of a child.
State v. JENT, Montana Supreme Court, Helena, MT: April 9, 2013. Issue: Restitution for medical expenses arising from the victim's post-assault suicide attempt.
State v. JOHNSON (No. 2011AP2864-CRAC), Wisconsin Supreme Court, Madison, WI: July 3, 2013. Issue: Defendant was charged with one count of repeated sexual assault of a child—his stepdaughter. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of the child-victim’s privileged therapy records, and the victim refused to consent to the release of the records. The trial court honored the victim’s assertion of her absolute statutory privilege with respect to her therapy records, and ordered that she would nevertheless be allowed to testify at trial, but with an instruction to the jury informing it of the victim’s refusal and stating that because of the refusal a presumption exists that the contents of the records would have been helpful to the defense. Both defendant and the state appealed.
State v. MacBALE, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem, OR: July 25, 2013. Issue: The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) participated in this case as amicus curiae in support of the government’s opposition to defendant’s petition before the Oregon Supreme Court. NCVLI argued that Oregon crime victims’ state constitutional rights to justice, protection and privacy, and to be treated with due dignity, respect and fairness—as well as their federal constitutional rights to privacy and to access the courts—required in camera procedures for rape shield hearings. NCVLI further argued that holding such hearings in camera helps to ensure that Oregon’s criminal justice system protects both crime victims’ rights and defendants’ rights.
State v. SCOLES, Supreme Court of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ: June 13, 2013. Issue: Defendant charged with endangering the welfare of a child based on allegations that he emailed images of child pornography.
STATE V. SUPANCHICK [---P.3rd---, Nos. CC 200525537, CA A139011, SC S060017, 2014 WL 576069 (Or. Feb. 13, 2014)], National Crime Victim Law Institute, Portland, OR: March 19, 2014. Issue: Defendant was convicted of the aggravated murder of his estranged wife, whom he murdered during an attempt to force her to recant allegations of physical and emotional abuse that formed the basis of a restraining order against him, and to give him custody of his daughter and leave the state. When defendant’s plan was not immediately successful and police officers approached his location, defendant shot his wife. The trial court, over defendant’s objection, admitted into evidence a number of statements made by the victim in connection with her application for a restraining order. The court found that defendant had killed the victim “with the purpose of eliminating her as a witness.” The court of appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction, and defendant sought review by the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing first that the evidence insufficiently established the intent necessary to justify the admission of the victim’s statements.
StUDENT WRITING AND POLICY WORK – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW PRACTICUM, School of Law-Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Amicus curiae briefs on various court cases.
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE "ONGOING EMERGENCY" IN MICHIGAN V. BRYANT, Herb Tanner and John Wilkinson, Strategies in Brief (issue 9), AEquitas, Washington, DC: December 2011.
SUPREME COURT CONTINUES TO EXPAND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO, Charlene Whitman and Viktoria Kristiansson, Strategies in Brief (issue 6), AEquitas, Washington, DC: December 2011.
SUPREME COURT HEARS CASE ON RAPE AND DEATH PENALTY, Allison Stevens, Women's eNews, Washington, DC: April 17, 2008. Copyright © 2008 Women's eNews.
SUPREME COURT HOBBY LOBBY DECISION PERPETUATES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Emily Tofte Nestaval, CCASA Blog, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Denver, CO: July 18, 2014. Copyright © 2011-2014 CCASA.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECIDES TURNER V. ROGERS, Jacquelyn Boggess, Center for Family Policy and Practice, Madison, WI: June 21, 2011.
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR DOMESTIC HOMICIDE CASE, Speaking Up (volume 14, issue 1), Futures Without Violence, San Francisco, CA: January 31, 2008. See Giles v. California.
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE, Speaking Up (volume 12, issue 2), Futures Without Violence, San Francisco, CA: February 14, 2006.
Texas APPEALS COURT SAYS PAST VIOLENCE SUFFICIENT FOR DATING PROTECTION ORDER, Texas Lawyer, Dallas, TX: March 29, 2004. Copyright © 2004 ALM Properties, Inc.
Thurman v. City of Torrington
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. GONZALES, Jessica
TYSON V. WARDEN, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, Rockville, CT: November 5, 2007. Important case on relationship of HIPAA to sexual assault counselor privileges and defense access.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RULES ON FIRST CASE UNDER CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT (CVRA), John Gilles, Office for Victims of Crime, Washington, DC: January 26, 2006. See Kenna v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES v. CASTLEMAN
UNITED STATES v. CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS (case number 1:09CF154), U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, January 26, 2010. Includes good data on: recidivism of sex offenders, child pornography, harm to victims and correlations.
UNITED STATES V. DIXON
United States v. Emerson, NewsFlash, Futures Without Violence, San Francisco, CA: October 18, 2001.
UNITED STATES V. HAYES
UNITED STATES V. HERRERA, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX: April 12, 2013. Memorandum opinion and order denying motions In Limine concerning expert witness testimony.
UNITED STATES V. KEIFER (No. 11-3942), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, November 5, 2012. Issue: appeal of a restitution order with the victim intervening in the appeal under the Crime Victims' Right Act U.S.C. § 3771.
UNITED STATES V. MORRIS (case summary), Kathryn Schwartz, 2009. Issues: discovery / production, expert testimony, privacy and victims' rights.
UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
VICTIM IMAGES DID NOT MAR TRIAL, JUSTICES RULE, Robert Barnes, The Washington Post, Washington , DC : December 12, 2006 . Copyright © 2006 The Washington Post Company. See Carey v. Musladin.
Victims Say Violence at Home Led to Job Loss, Amy Gardner, News & Observer, Raleigh, Durham, Cary and Chapel Hill, NC: December 8, 2004. Copyright © 2004 The News & Observer Publishing Company. See Imes v. City of Asheville, CCL Management, Inc., and Asheville City Coach Lines, Inc. ~ Brief of Amici Curiae.
VIDEOTAPED CHILD TESTIMONY STATUTE UPHELD, Amaris Elliott-Engel, The Legal Intelligencer, February 28, 2008. Copyright © 2008 ALM Properties.
WARSHAK v. USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cincinnati, OH: July 18, 2007. Issue: seizure of e-mail.
Washington Supreme Court Overturns Divorce Punishment of Wife Who Reported Abuse – Dawud A. Muhammad v. Cherry Muhammad (153 Wn.2d 795; 108 P.3d 779; 2005 Wash. LEXIS 274), Supreme Court of Washington, Olympia, WA: March 24, 2005. Copyright © 2005 LexisNexis.
WEISSENBURGER v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WARREN COUNTY, Iowa Supreme Court, Des Moines, IA: October 26, 2007.
Wine v. Quezada, New Jersey Law Journal, Newark, NJ: July 18, 2005. Copyright © 2005 ALM Properties, Inc. Issue: family law – attorney's fees – domestic violence.
WISCONSIN V. SVEUM, MICHAEL A. (case number 2008AP658-CR), Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, May 7, 2009. Case okays, with reservations, the use of GPS to gather evidence on a stalker.
Woman Beaten by Husband Wins Suit, Tom Jackman, The Washington Post, Washington, DC: August 18, 2006.
Woman'S LAWSUIT AGAINST JUDGE DISMISSED, Anna Jo Bratton, Associated Press, Lincoln Journal Star, Lincoln, NE: September 25, 2007. Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star.