For the Record: Prosecuting Domestic Violence Before and After Crawford

Michelle Kaminsky, Chief of the Gender-Based Violence Division at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, talks about the evolution of domestic violence prosecution over her 30-year career. From trial strategy to a discussion about how to meet the justice and safety victims seek outside the courtroom, Michelle shares how she prepares prosecutors in her unit to handle these complex cases compassionately and effectively. We also explore the legal implications of Crawford v. Washington and its progeny—and how these cases impacted the way prosecutors prepare domestic violence cases where the victims are unable or unwilling to participate in the prosecution. Michelle discusses the practical and constitutional considerations at play, how courts analyze “ongoing emergency” in the the context of the admissibility of out of court “testimonial” statements, and how a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to protect and empower victims both in and out of court.This podcast discusses the violent crimes of sexual violence, domestic violence, stalking, and human trafficking. If you need support, please call: The National Domestic Violence Hotline, RAINN, and Polaris. If you'd like more info about AEquitas visit: https://aequitasresource.org/ or email us at: [email protected]. Follow AEquitas on Instagram @aequitas_resourceFor more information on today's topics, you can find strategies for prosecuting a domestic violence case without victim testimony, i.e., evidence based prosecution, at AEquitas' Resource Page from earlier articles on the implications of the holdings here that include: Crawford v. Washington, Davis v. Washington, Hammon v. Indiana Michigan v. Bryant And more targeted analysis of Michigan v. Bryant and Ohio v. Clark