Promoting victim safety and offender accountability

Improving the response to misdemeanor domestic violence
Report summary by Kate Hovde, Suburban Court Project Coordinator

“...each encounter between someone living with [domestic] violence and a practitioner in the ‘system’ is an opportunity to interrupt the actions and patterns that sustain battering.”¹

Domestic violence is a challenge facing all communities. It is a crime that more often than not escalates without intervention, and extensive research shows that the justice system’s response can significantly impact whether or not the battering will continue or be deterred. Stemming the violence, however, requires not just a commitment from community leaders and the courts, but constant attention to what is working and what needs improvement.

WATCH’s newest report focuses on how misdemeanor cases of domestic violence are handled in Hennepin County’s three suburban courts. It concludes that each municipality should focus efforts on eliminating domestic violence and putting in place policies that make this a reality. But the report’s observations and recommendations apply broadly as communities across the United States grapple with this relentless social problem.

WATCH’s research

In 2009, for the first time in its 17-year history, WATCH was able to expand outside of the downtown Minneapolis courts and conduct a 21-month monitoring project to evaluate how misdemeanor domestic violence cases are treated in the suburban courts. Brookdale, Ridgedale, and Southdale are responsible for all non-felony traffic and criminal cases that occur within the 44 suburban municipalities. According to the Fourth Judicial District Research Division, the suburban courts handle approximately 30,000 cases per year, accounting for 55% of all non-felony filings in Hennepin County. All nonfelony cases occurring within the city of Minneapolis are held in the downtown courts, which include a specialized domestic violence court.

The purpose of the report is to outline how Hennepin County suburban courts can improve their response to domestic violence cases and to make specific recommendations for key changes. To inform our report and the resulting recommendations, WATCH staff and 34 volunteers spent more than 2,000 hours monitoring nearly 1,500 suburban court appearances. In conjunction with daily monitoring, WATCH conducted quarterly meetings with volunteer monitors to address concerns and offer feedback; facilitated two meetings with stakeholders representing criminal justice system personnel and community advocates; held informal interviews with advocates, probation officers, and court administrators to gather input; and conducted a wrap-up focus group with monitors.

WATCH evaluated both the process – courtroom environment and efficiency, and the substance – individual case outcomes. With few exceptions, the primary causes of the issues described in the report are system-wide and not the result of individual behavior. The key findings identified in the report are:

• A lack of accountability for repeat offenders
• A lack of emphasis on victim safety
• A need for improvements in courtroom environment

Highlights from the full report, available on www.watchmn.org/reports, include:

• In Minnesota, domestic violence offenses are enhanceable, meaning that subsequent domestic violence offenses can be charged as a gross misdemeanor or felony². In the suburban courts, less than half (49%) of the domestic assault cases that resulted in a conviction were resolved with an enhanceable offense. Resolving cases with nonenhanceable offenses eliminates the opportunity to use increased penalties to hold repeat offenders accountable.
• Of all suburban cases with a conviction, 25% resulted in the defendant being ordered to probation to the court rather than supervised probation. When defendants are placed on probation to the court, they are not required to report to a probation officer, and no mechanism is in place for the victim to report safety concerns or violations.
• In the suburban courts, judges failed to explain the no contact order to defendants in one third of domestic violence cases. Failing to explain these orders is a disservice to both defendants and victims. Violations of the order may result in additional criminal charges for the defendant, and victim safety can be compromised if the defendant engages in ongoing abuse, harassment, or threats.
• WATCH monitors documented that it was difficult or impossible to hear proceedings 54% of the time due to noise in the courtroom and called attention to the lack of weapons screening or other safety measures in place to protect victims, community members, and court personnel at the three suburban courts.

The following abbreviated case summary illustrates some of our findings:

A defendant was charged with gross misdemeanor domestic assault, gross misdemeanor fourth degree assault of a police officer, and misdemeanor obstruction of legal process for assaulting his girlfriend and resisting arrest (Case 1). Later the same day, he was arrested a second time and charged with gross misdemeanor violation of a no contact order (Case 2). A month later, he was arrested again and charged with gross misdemeanor violation of a no contact order (Case 3).

Prior to these cases, the defendant’s criminal history included five domestic violence-related offenses, three of which occurred in the last 10 years. Two of these cases were reduced from gross misdemeanor domestic assault to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. According to the police report, after his arrest in Case 1, “The defendant stated he knew how the system worked, and he knew how to get out of it.” Had the prior cases resulted in convictions for enhanceable offenses, the three most recent cases could have been charged as felonies.

The defendant pled to misdemeanor obstruction of legal process (Case 1), gross misdemeanor violation of a no contact order (Case 2), and misdemeanor violation of a no contact order (Case 3). Finally, after 16 years and eight domestic violence cases, the defendant could now face felony charges for any future domestic violence offenses.

Changes currently in effect

WATCH has observed many positive and encouraging steps already taken to improve the functioning of the suburban courts. In January 2010, Hennepin County District Court launched a pilot project at Ridgedale that blocked cases to one judge from the initial appearance through the sentencing and created a four-judge team. Southdale and Brookdale followed suit in May 2010. Block teams and court personnel are meeting regularly to address concerns and discuss possible improvements, and District Court has plans to conduct its own evaluation of the efficacy of these changes and the overall efficiency of the suburban courts.

In November 2010, WATCH joined a best practices committee established to review the current best practices document, created in 2005 for Minneapolis’ designated domestic violence court, for export to the suburbs, a crucial step in addressing specifically how domestic violence cases should be handled. The suburban courts continue to be a work in progress, and District Court demonstrates an ongoing commitment to making improvements.

Conclusion

To effectively decrease domestic violence, every stage of a domestic violence case in the justice system must be considered through the lens of victim and community safety and offender accountability. Former New York chief judge Judith S. Kaye wrote,

If domestic violence defendants present a particular risk of future violence, then why not enhance monitoring efforts to deter such actions? If victims remain in abusive situations due to fear for their own and their children’s well being, then why not provide links to services and safety planning that may expand the choices available to them? If cases are slipping between the cracks of a fragmented criminal justice system, then why not work together to improve coordination and consistency?³

WATCH supports increased communication and coordination as a primary means of addressing the areas in need of improvement. An effective response to domestic violence is a shared responsibility and requires that each part of the judicial system considers the impact it will have on victim safety and offender accountability. It is easy to focus on individual jurisdictions and disregard the bigger picture. Interconnectedness among the suburban municipalities, and with Minneapolis and Hennepin County, would help ensure that the response to these cases is consistent, regardless of where the offense occurs.

WATCH hopes this report will enhance current efforts and lead to the development and implementation of more effective policies and protocols and will result in:

• Municipalities taking a stronger and more active stance against domestic violence, in part by resolving cases and setting supervised probationary conditions that would prevent future violence;
• Judges consistently explaining no contact orders and other conditions of release in detail and, by doing so, increase victim safety and offender compliance, sending a message that domestic violence is a serious matter that will be treated as such by the court;
• District Court giving appropriate attention to environmental and safety concerns in the suburban courts, including the lack of weapons screening, in order to create safer and more accessible courts; and
• The formation of a multi-disciplinary domestic violence steering committee to address the specific recommendations in WATCH’s report, oversee case outcomes, and monitor progress towards improvements.

The complete list of recommendations and a more detailed look at our findings can be found in the full report, available at www.watchmn.org/reports.

This article appears in the Spring 2011 WATCH newsletter. You can download the entire issue (as a .pdf) here.

1 “The Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes.” St. Paul Blueprint for Safety, 2010.

2 Once a defendant is convicted of one of the domestic-violence related offenses listed in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16, future domestic violence related charges may be enhanced to a gross misdemeanor or felony if occurring within the same 10-year period.

3 Judith S. Kaye and Susan K. Knipps. “Judicial Responses to Domestic Violence: The Case for a Problem Solving Approach.” Western State University Law Review 27:3 (1999-2000).