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.

 


Illegal Searches are More Common Than You Might Think

December 11, 2020

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

One of the best weapons in defending many cases is the exclusionary rule.  That rule prevents illegally attained evidence from being used by the prosecution during trial.  The exclusionary rule is the citizens legal protection remedy from illegal police acts.

Isn’t it a Bit Much to Say the Police Acted Illegally?

Think of the word ‘illegal’ in terms of a penalty during a football game such as ‘illegal procedure.’  The word ‘illegal’ has a much lighter connotation when we know it’s just a 5 yard penalty for a player moving the wrong direction before the snap.

Calling a search or particular police action ‘illegal’ is really no different.  As the accused, you’re merely saying there was a foul committed without regard to wether it was intentional or severe.  But the rules are the rules and everyone has to play by them.

Motion to Suppress

A motion to suppress the evidence is a request for the judge to trigger the exclusionary rule and render the illegally attained evidence unusable.  The most common legal grounds are the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting illegal search and seizure and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23.

Illegal Searches Can’t be Very Common, Right?

They’re more common than you think.  You have to remember civil rights cases from the 1960’s and 1970’s still have a large imprint on search and seizure law.  The courts are uncomfortable with traffic stops and/or searches based on little more than hunches because those were rightly exposed as profiling.  Though today’s police might also include teenagers or people who have an alternative appearance in addition to racial minorities – there isn’t much of a difference under the law.  Profiling is profiling.

Articulable Facts vs. Subjective Opinion

You also have to remember police in targeting certain groups are often aggressive in their approach.  Police need to be able to articulate the facts which justify traffic stops and continued roadside detentions.  As an example a police officer saying he stopped a car because “he just knew they were up to no good” isn’t going to fly.  It’s a hunch and courts don’t like that.

Closer examples might include thin and subjective reasoning for keeping someone detained at a routine traffic stop – nervousness, the time of day/ night, or even labeling the area of the stop as ‘high crime’ with little or no proof.  Courts have repeatedly said these types of justifications are akin to multiplying zeros when it comes to articulable facts.

Articulable facts, on the other hand, might include “the driver was going 58 in a 45.”  Or the driver smelled like alcohol, said he was on his way to Dallas but was driving the opposite way.

So where an officer can plainly, quickly, and obviously explain the probable cause – the better chance they have of keeping a detention legal.  The more they rely on opinion and conjecture – the more problems they might have explaining it later.

Again, police know they are fighting crime and doing great things by keeping drugs, guns, and drunk drivers off the streets.  They will often push and test the rules for reasons they think are justified.

The end result may be that often they have mis-stepped.

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


Can I Sue the Police After an Arrest?

December 10, 2020

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

I’ll do my best to stay in my lane.  I defend people charged with crime and I don’t sue police but I get this question a lot so I’ll do my best to answer.

I often refer cases where folks are interested in taking legal action out to lawyers who focus more in that area.  But if I don’t think you’ve got much of a case — I can still probably diagnose it and let you know if it’s good time and energy spent on a bad task.

What I can also say is this – if you’re charged with a crime the first priority is always to defeat those charges.  I liken it to playing defense before playing offense.  Pleading guilty or losing a case where you’re trying to sue the police is a great way to spoil that case.

Immunity From Suit

Police, prosecutors and judges have wide-ranging immunity from civil liability and for good reason.  We want them to be able to do their jobs and not constantly worry about getting sued nor put their own personal assets on the line for just doing their job.

There are some limited situations where they are individually liable.  The main one is under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

42 U.S.C. 1983

This federal statute says the following:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congressapplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

In English – if a government worker as part of their job intentionally deprives someone of a constitutional right or liberty then they can be sued in federal court.  There are law review articles on this statute and it’s the subject of entire law school classes – so I don’t pretend for a moment this blog covers it all.

In short – 1983 claims are typically brought for police brutality and prison litigation but it isn’t exclusively reserved for that.  The standard is pretty difficult because negligence generally isn’t enough to trigger liability.

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

 

 

 


Can the Police Track Your Phone?

November 16, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Yes, police can track your phone.

Smart phones, car infotainment systems, and computers have absolutely revolutionized criminal investigation and criminal law.

While these forensic practices are very cutting edge and revolutionary – they are still somewhat impractical depending on the case.  Legally there are obstacles for law enforcement too – but those are typically overcome.

The intersection between liberty and technology is always evolving and it always will.  Courts recognize people have privacy interests in our phones, cars and computers for which we increasingly rely – but the more advanced the technology – the more tempting and simple it is for law enforcement to attain.

For example, cell tower triangulation currently requires not only knowing specific information about the device but also requires getting records from the carrier.  A car infotainment download is very expensive but it can tell law enforcement anything the car has communicated to the driver such as GPS data, lane assist warnings or car door openings.

Tracking cell phones requires lots of work which might include search warrants for records and even fighting with the likes of AT&T or Sprint – but it is possible and can be extremely valuable to police.

I rarely see cell phone tracking in cases such as driving while intoxicated, theft, or even sexual assault.  Cell phone triangulation and tracking are common in homicide cases, kidnapping cases and other high-profile cases.  Also, civil lawsuits might have cell phone tracking evidence because a party is willing to shell out the money to pay for it.

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


Can the Police Lie To Me?

November 15, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Yes, the police can lie to you during an investigation.

Deception is a legitimate tool of law enforcement.  If you don’t believe me, watch any mafia or gang movie where the police plant someone to infiltrate the group.  I’d call someone with a fake identity who pretends to be someone else a touch on the dishonest side, would’t you?

Let’s be honest – often the ends justify the means.  We all want killers, child molesters, or thieves to be caught and a bit of trickeration is typically tolerable to a point for all of us depending on what the police are digging into.

A key assumption I am making here is the officer or detective’s mind is made up about the case before they attempt to speak to the accused.  Just know this obviously isn’t always the case.  There are many times an officer legitimately isn’t trying to manipulate someone into giving them information and they really are just trying to understand what really happened in a given case.  Then again, the whole reason for this blog today is we’re never 100% that we know the difference.

Lawyers cannot lie ethically whether in court or not.  I’m not aware of any similar ethical requirement of police or law enforcement.  They cannot commit perjury, obviously — but when they deal with a citizen under investigation they are not under oath.

How Common is it for Police to Lie During an Investigation?

Very common.  And to be fair to police, lies come in all different shapes and forms and rarely are they complete fabrications like infiltrating the mob.  Some can be exaggerations, lying by not telling a suspect the complete truth about what the police know, or telling a suspect half-truths to try and get them to open up and confess.

Many agencies employ the Reid Method of Interrogation – a controversial tactic with psychological underpinnings designed to manipulate an accused into confession.

Everyday Examples of Police Techniques

During a DWI arrest – the officer may say something like “I’d like to have you do some tests to see if you’re okay to drive.”  It’s pretty disingenuous when the cop has already called the tow-truck to have the person arrested.  In this instance the officer is leaving the false impression the person can somehow avoid the arrest if they perform well enough or are cooperative.  But police are trained to get all the evidence of the intoxication on video tape – and this is exactly what they are doing in this example.

During a Sexual Assault Investigation – a detective might often pretend to know facts they don’t.  Or a detective might do the opposite – pretend not to know anything but in reality know many of the answers to the questions being asked.  Like the Driving While Intoxication situation – the officer may give the false impression the suspect can talk their way out of an arrest when in reality the detective has already secured an arrest warrant.

Bluffing or “Hot Boxing”– Police bluff and threaten certain consequences they can’t follow through on knowing they are dealing with someone who doesn’t know the difference.  Another term I call “hot boxing” is where an officer puts on a high-pressure push to get a person to comply with an interview or make statements.

Vagueness as a Weapon – An extremely common thing I see is a police officer or detective simply being vague with a suspect.  “If you don’t tell me your side of the story, I can’t help you” or “I just want to hear your side the story.”  As you can see there are no real promises here and it implies no decisions have been made.  But that’s not always true.

There is No Substitute for Experience and “Feel”

The fact is if you’re facing a situation where the police want to question you – and you’re concerned they’re being less than 100% honest with you then you really need a lawyer in your corner.

Police have a much more difficult time manipulating or/ working an experienced lawyer – and most don’t even try.  But one thing an experienced lawyer can have with an investigating law enforcement agent is an honest conversation.  And that’s a good thing.

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