Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 14: Common Prosecution Trial Tactics

December 26, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

In domestic violence trials, prosecutors know typically their case is only as strong as their complaining witness.

You can read other blogs about defending domestic violence charges and an index to the other blogs here.

Most family assault cases will have the prosecution calling to the witness stand the accuser, one or more police officers who were presumably on the scene, and increasingly expert witnesses who are often what we characterize as “blind.”

Exhibits will consist typically of photos taken the evening of the arrest of the complaining witness, the defendant and often of the place the altercation, if any, occurred if there is damage.  We also might see media in the form of 911 calls or body-cameras from police.

Corroboration

Because the accuser is the main witness – the prosecutor obviously attempts to show the jury as much evidence as they can which corroborate that witness’ account.  It could be physical injuries, cuts or scars.  It could also be physical evidence on the scene such as broken items or the location of other evidence or debris from an altercation.

Medical records exist in many cases but not all.  Obviously those are valuable pieces of evidence a to which a prosecutor will point if it fortifies their case.

Often times the corroboration might include statements the accused makes whether or not it is consistent with a true confession.

“The Cycle of Violence” and “Power and Control Wheel”

The cycle of violence and power and control wheel, which I’ve blogged about before, are central tenants of the Duluth Model and are loaded with assumptions and weaknesses.

The cycle is a theory which says domestic abuse goes through cyclical patterns which include assaultive abuse, a honeymoon phase, and then increasing tension followed again by assaultive abuse which is often worse than before.

The power and control wheel describes underlying motivations which include power and control by the abuser

These are generally incorporated into the prosecution’s case in AFV trials.  The prosecution attempts to fit aspects of the cycle and the wheel into the facts of the case.  Sometimes their evidence fits and sometimes it doesn’t.

True Story — I once had a prosecutor argue to a jury that when my client filed for divorce after she’d accused him of assault that it was because he was trying to control her.  I include it because it shows just how far the prosecution might reach and jam any fact they can into the “power and control wheel” whether it fits or not.  You would think filing for divorce would also be evidence of wanting to not be around another person at all (because they just had him falsely arrested for assault) and would be the complete opposite of trying to control them.

“Blind Lumper” Expert Witnesses

The “blind” expert is often a person who either works with law enforcement or as an advocate for domestic violence victims.  They are blind for the reason they usually don’t know any of the facts of a specific case until they hit the witness stand.  They are “lumpers” because academics tend to either “lump” everything into one-size fits all or they tend to “split” and show how one case differs from the rest.

They are then lobbed hypotheticals by the prosecution.  The unshackling result is the blind lumper witness then molds the hypothetical into how it fits the Duluth Model which shows, according to them, defendant is guilty.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 13: The Duluth Model and Reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

December 24, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

“The Duluth Model” is the current prevailing theory of domestic violence by law enforcement in the United States.

Its origins are from Duluth, Minnesota and was based on a treatment program run by Ellen Pence, a self proclaimed activist.

The “Cycle of Violence”, “Power and Control Wheel”, and “Batterers Intervention Program” are some of the staples of the Duluth Model in action.

You can read other blogs and the index to my continuing series on defending domestic violence cases here.

The Cycle of Violence

The Cycle of Violence was developed by Lenore Walker in 1979 based on 120 battered women.  She believed in three phases:

  • Tension Building Phase
  • Acute Explosive Phase
  • Honeymoon Phase

Her theory is an abuser causes the relationship to build tension which makes the victim  “walk on eggshells.”  The acute explosive phase is where the violence and abuse occurs and after this there is a honeymoon phase where the abuser apologizes, promises change, and goes out of their way to re-attract their mate.  This of course gives way again to another tension building phase and so on according “the cycle.”

Assumptions the “Cycle of Violence Makes”

It Assumes Domestic Abuse Within a Relationship is Unilateral

The cycle of violence assumes the abuse is unilateral and not reciprocal.  But studies have shown alarming rates of “Reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence” whereby both intimate partners at times are aggressors and at other times are victims.

It Presumes Guilt

The “Cycle of Violence” seems to have been created as a tool for treatment and therapy – not for the diagnosis of domestic violence.  When using it to attempt to prove guilt – it actually presumes guilt as an underlying assumption.

If you replace the very top assumption with its opposite – Defendant is innocent – then absolutely none of the other phases make logical sense.  But this diagram shows how the echo-chamber logic is circular in the first place.

 

Mental Illness & Substance Abuse Also Cause Domestic Violence

The Duluth Model holds, essentially, manipulation control and power are the root causes for domestic abuse.  But other contributing factor of domestic violence, as anyone who defends these cases on a regular basis will tell you, are anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses such as psychosis.  Not far behind as contributing factors are substance abuse.

“Evidence Flipping”

Much of the problem with highly subjective echo chamber concepts such as the cycle of violence is the ability for the prosecution to take any evidence whatsoever and flip it into evidence of guilt.

Is buying your spouse flowers a confession?  This is what a prosecutor would argue is the “honeymoon” phase.  If this were true, though, then every florist needs to contact the police every time someone makes a purchase.

Is every instance of tension in a marriage evidence of “the tension building phase?”  If this were true, every marriage counselor would have the police on speed-dial.

Other Criticism of the “Duluth Model”

The Power and Control Wheel

The “Power and Control Wheel” is a similar diagram to the cycle of violence.  It differs in that it purports to describe the methods of power and manipulation the abuser uses to control the victim.

The criticism of the Power and Control wheel over-lap with the criticism of the Cycle of Violence.  It assumes the physical abuse in a relationship is unilateral.  It presumes guilt.  It, too, largely ignores mental illness and substance abuse as underlying factors – and proscribes power as the main motivator between an abuser and the abused.

The Countervailing Theory – Reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

Reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence, also called mutual violence and/or symmetrical violence holds both intimate partners have been aggressors at times and both have been victims at times.  Again, this directly undercuts the Duluth Model which presumes the abuse to be unilateral or one-way.

Studies have shown “reciprocal” violence to be between 42% and 70% in relationships where there is domestic abuse.  In a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, concluded roughly half of abusive relationships fit this profile.  The same study shows it was actually women who were thought to be the aggressors 70% of the time, however men inflicted more physical harm to their partners.

If the Duluth Model is Wrong Half of the Time – Then So What?

It’s important because the prosecution can be very heavy handed in the way they attack a case with the Duluth Model.  It includes their potential misconceptions about the reality of the relationship of the couple which can skew and make the potential punishment not only unfair and inequitable – but also not assist the couple with the real underlying dysfunctional issues.

From a defense perspective – it also opens the door to defenses such as self defense and consent when we break the misconceptions the Duluth Model may inject.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 


Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 12:  The Consent Defense (i.e. Mutual Combat)

December 23, 2020

By McKinney Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Dallas Cowboys at “The Star” in Frisco put on their pads and helmets on a daily basis, go out onto a football field, and routinely intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to one another.

We all know that’s not assault because when you put the pads on – you’re agreeing to allow another person to inflict pain.  The contact is welcomed.

This is the law school example of the consent defense to assault and it’s my topic today for my continuing series about defending domestic abuse cases.

Police refer to this as “mutual combat” but legally there is no real term for this in Texas.  The law in Texas calls it consent.

The Legal Definition of “Consent”

Use of force against another person isn’t criminal if the other person “effectively consented” or the person reasonably believed the other has “effectively consented.”  The conduct involved must be limited to bodily injury because a person cannot consent, as a matter of law, to aggravated assault (serious bodily injury).

“Effective consent” is defined in the negative.  We know what it’s not… Consent isn’t effective by reason of youth, mental disease or defect or intoxication.  Consent also isn’t effective if it was induced by force, threat or fraud.

So a person can be acquitted of assault — including domestic violence assault — if the jury is instructed on “consent” and the state fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the complaining witness did not ‘effectively consent’ to the assault and (2) the assault did not cause or threaten to cause serious bodily injury.

How Could this Possibly Apply in a Family Assault Situation?

An example I’ve given to clients countless times is this:  ever see two people stand toe to toe either in a bar or the high school gym?  What are they communicating to one another?  The answer is  BRING IT ON.  If I physically get in another person’s face, stare them down, and dare them to throw a punch at me — my view is I’ve invited physical contact.

And remember – what legally makes domestic assault is the affirmative finding of family violence done by a judge after either a person has plead guilty or a jury has convicted them of assault.  So all the legal defenses to assault are available to a person regardless of gender or family status.

Also many intimate relationships are reciprocally violent.  That is some couples fight one another on a regular basis and both partners are regularly the aggressor, the victim, or it’s indistinguishable.

Given this backdrop – the bar or schoolyard scenario can happen in a living room too.  It’s dysfunctional to be sure… but some couples engage in mutual combat.

Words enough cannot legally trigger self defense.  But words combined with physical manifestations of agreed contact are enough to trigger consent.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 


Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 11:  Self-Defense

December 22, 2020

By DFW Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

Self-defense is the lynchpin of many, many domestic violence cases.

You have the right to defense yourself from an assault in Texas.  The law makes no distinction about gender, age or mental disability in the area of self defense.

Read here for an index of defending domestic violence cases topics.

Texas Law on Self-Defense

Here is Texas Penal Code 9.31(a) which I’ll dissect after you give it a read:

…a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

“Immediately Necessary”

The law requires when someone defends themselves the impending attack on them must be imminent – not some time in the near or distant future.

“Use or Attempted Use of Unlawful Force”

The term unlawful force here is crucial.  Unlawful force can be defined as any unwanted, offensive or provocative contact.

Police, prosecutors and even defense lawyers make the common mistake in assault cases of assuming merely because someone inflicted more damage in an altercation – that person must not have been exercising self defense.

Also, this statute is mainly in the mind of the defendant.  Did the defendant “believe force” was “immediately necessary”?  Even if defendant misread the situation, they could still argue self-defense if in their mind they believed they were defending themselves.

Some common/ potential examples of self defense in domestic abuse cases:

  • Accuser shoves defendant and scratches defendant’s face – defendant pushes back knocking accuser onto the floor;
  • Accuser screaming and poking defendant in the chest (unwanted or provocative contact) – defendant grabs accusers arm causing pain;
  • Accuser is intoxicated and throws a weak punch at defendant – defendant braces the accuser from throwing any more punches and in doing so causes pain in forcing them to the ground;

Reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

No discussion of self-defense is complete without the mention of a concept known as “reciprocal intimate partner violence” or “RIPV.”  It is a term used by Ph.D’s who have studied domestic violence and believe  much of the dysfunction is reciprocal – meaning both partners have been the aggressors at times and the victims at times.  It’s a concept I’ll discuss at length more during later blogs in this continuing series on domestic violence cases – but it is important to understand mutual combat situations are very common in domestic assault cases.

What Degree of Force is Appropriate?

Self-Defense allows defense within reason and the defense must be proportional.  Someone cannot kill another person for spitting on their face.

When someone is defending themselves from unlawful contact, they can cause bodily injury in response (infliction of pain or discomfort).

When someone is defending themselves from serious bodily injury or death (impairment of a life function or major organ), they can in turn use deadly force. Tex.Pen.C. 9.32.

When Self-Defense Isn’t Allowed

The law does not allow someone to provoke the accuser into committing an assault only to attack them in return.  The law also doesn’t allow someone to defend themselves because of words alone.  A person can also not lawfully make a self defense claim if they are in the commission of a crime greater than a traffic-level offense.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 10:  Asserting a Legal Defense to Assault

December 21, 2020

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

There is no area in Texas criminal law where understanding how defenses work is more important than in assaultive cases.

The goal of today’s blog in my continuing series on defending domestic violence charges is to provide an analytical framework to help understand how defenses such as self defense, consent, necessity or even insanity fit in to and acquit someone in an assault case.

The Jury Charge

In law school they teach us to plan backwards for trial.  We start with what is known as a jury charge.  The jury charge is the 3, 4 or 10 pages of instructions given to the jury when they deliberate by the judge.

The main goal when you assert a defense in a criminal case is to have the judge instruct the jury that if your defense has enough merit – you win.  A defendant does not have to assert a defense – but if they do – it will not be in the jury charge unless there is evidence supporting the defense.

A jury charge in an assault case where defenses have been proffered can read like a tennis match.  If the prosecution has proven x, but because of the defense you believe y then you shall acquit the defendant.  Without the defense in the jury charge it would simply read “if the prosecution has proven x then you shall convict.”

General Defenses vs. Affirmative Defenses

Here’s the super confusing stuff – and I’ll make it as simple as possible.  Almost all defenses in an assault case will be an affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense relates to excused conduct and a general defense relates to an inability to understand one own actions.

Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses require the defense to prove enough facts to the judge so that he/she puts it into the jury charge at the end of the trial.  Those facts usually admit the crime but offer a reason or justification (such as self defense, consent, or necessity).

If defendant is able to raise the affirmative defense, then the judge instructs the jury that the prosecution must DIS-prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is a very high burden for the prosecutor to do.

So for a self defense case – the prosecution in addition to having to prove all of the basic elements of assault were proven beyond a reasonable doubt now has an additional set of elements they must disprove:  that it was self defense.

General Defenses

These typically include insanity, mistake of law, mistake of fact, duress and entrapment.  They all essentially go to “did the defendant know what they were doing was wrong” or in some instances was the defendant’s will simply over-powered.

The defense has the burden to prove in these cases by a preponderance of the evidence their defense is true.  The burden doesn’t shift to the prosecution unlike in affirmative defenses.

So Here’s How this Works:

 

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.