Ensuring victim safety and abuser accountability: reforms and revisions in New York courts' response to domestic violence.

• Author: Lippman, Jonathan

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. CHANGES TO THE NEW YORK CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM OVER TIME HAVE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE A. In the past, antiquated views of women and domestic violence impeded the prosecution of abusers B. Logistical and procedural obstacles in criminal court also prevented litigants from accessing justice C. Mandatory arrest policies, a statewide domestic violence registry, and other reforms were implemented to aid law enforcement and prosecutors D. The creation of specialized domestic violence courts brings families with overlapping criminal and family court cases before the same judge E. The success of specialized DV courts and other reforms are documented by encouraging statistical trends from the criminal courts III. INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS IN THE FAMILY COURTS HAVE INCREASED ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS A. Historically, obstacles in family court prevented victims of domestic violence from obtaining relief B. Legislative changes and the strengthening of civil protective orders have aided in combating domestic violence C. The implementation of Family Justice Centers and expanded access to civil legal services provide increased support to domestic violence victims IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

The violent murder of Galina Komar by her abusive ex-boyfriend on February 12, 1996 grabbed the attention of New Yorkers and made domestic violence a front-page issue. (1) Ms. Komar, a Russian immigrant who lived in Brooklyn, endured over a year of abuse at the hands of her boyfriend, Benito Oliver. (2) Throughout the course of their relationship, Mr. Oliver repeatedly punched Ms. Komar, threatened her, and slammed her into walls. (3) On one particular occasion, he hit her on the head with a pipe so hard that it opened a gash that required twenty-two stitches to close. (4) Though Ms. Komar had twice been sent to the hospital by her boyfriend's beatings, the charges against Mr. Oliver were never more serious than misdemeanors, as felony assaults required more serious injuries, such as broken bones. (5) One night, after Mr. Oliver held a knife to her throat, threatened to kill her, and forced her to have sex, Ms. Komar called the police, and Mr. Oliver was arrested on misdemeanor assault charges. (6) While he was held over a forty-one day period, Mr. Oliver's prosecution was the subject of thirteen hearings in front of five different judges, eight different prosecutors, and three different defense lawyers. (7) Though Mr. Oliver was a four-time felon and Ms. Komar had two orders of protection filed against him, the judge modified the bail terms and allowed for Mr. Oliver's release. (8) Three weeks after his release, Mr. Oliver went to the car dealership where Ms. Komar worked, shot her in the head, and then killed himself. (9)

Ms. Komar's violent death raised awareness in New York City and throughout the state regarding the problem of domestic violence. Ms. Komar's murder highlighted the shortcomings within the court system with regard to how domestic violence cases were handled. Judges and court personnel were not adequately trained in domestic violence issues and often harbored negative and sexist preconceived notions about victims. In both criminal and family courts, structural and procedural impediments to safeguarding families from domestic violence were widespread.

Since then, New York courts have come a long way in changing the way domestic violence cases are handled. Legislative activity and changes in court administration have been effective in addressing some of the obstacles faced by litigants as they navigate the court system.

Educational programs have informed judges and court personnel about the myriad of issues surrounding domestic violence so that courts are better able to address and mitigate problems. While a lot has been accomplished, still more needs to be done to address the shortage of legal services for victims of domestic violence. There are a growing number of people who cannot afford legal services, yet public interest legal service providers must turn away the vast majority of people seeking help, creating a justice gap. (10) To stop the widening of this gap, state government, non-profit groups, bar associations, and the legal community at large must work together to set new standards for the provision of civil legal services in New York and around the country.

2. CHANGES TO THE NEW YORK CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM OVER TIME HAVE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

   1. In the past, antiquated views of women and domestic violence impeded the prosecution of abusers.

      For many years, domestic violence was considered a "private matter" and a subject inappropriate for the public courts. (11) New York police officers were not required to, and often explicitly instructed not to, arrest individuals who committed domestic violence felonies, violated stay-away orders of protection, or committed family offenses in violation of an order of protection. (12) Victims of domestic violence were encouraged to attend counseling with their abusers instead of bringing a claim against them or assisting in their prosecution. (13) Victims also were not offered services after a domestic violence incident or assistance in leaving an abuser. (14)

      Victims received little help from prosecutors, even when a criminal case was being brought against their abuser. (15) Prosecutors often felt that there was "little incentive ... to pursue domestic violence cases, which were traditionally low-prestige and unlikely to have a high conviction rate." (16) Prosecutors lamented that victims often did not follow through with pressing charges and generally concluded that it was not worth additional resources to charge cases. (17) Moreover, the percentage of domestic violence incidents resulting in an arrest was low, and the dismissal rate of cases was high. (18) "[P]rosecutors would drop charges in anywhere from 50% to 80% of cases ... [because] the 'victim request[ed] it, refuse[d] to testify, recant[ed], or fail[ed] to appear in court."' (19) Only a tiny "number of domestic violence incidents to which police responded ever made it to court at all." (20)

      Additionally, "[j]udges and other professionals in the court system [were] ... underinformed about the nature of domestic violence and the characteristics of victims and offenders," as well as the unique difficulties facing domestic violence victims. (21) Many believed that women could tolerate being battered and could not understand why they would not leave their abusers. (22) And since police, court personnel, and judges often presumed that victims provoked beatings and abuse, hostile attitudes towards victims in court were common. The 1986 Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts made the observation that women were "treated dismissively, like burdensome children, or disrespectfully, like sexual objects." (23) Judge Amy Juviler of New York City Criminal Court testified in 1985 that court personnel reacted in one of two ways after learning that a victim failed to follow through with proceedings in family court or criminal court: court officials either believed that the minor intercession of the court resolved the problem or they felt that the woman who reconciled with her abuser was not worthy of respect because she did not respect herself. (24) Judges lacked awareness that a victim's decision not to pursue prosecution involved many complicating factors, such as psychological and physical intimidation, and emotional and financial dependence on her abuser. (25)

      In general, judges rarely or never jailed abusers for violating an order of protection, except for cases where the abuse was extreme or where multiple violations occurred. (26) Perhaps most troubling, a victim's husband often was punished more leniently than a stranger committing a similar offenses Judges also were not cognizant of the gravity of the crimes committed as a result of domestic violence (28) and did not have an adequate "understanding of issues of self-defense and justification as ... [related] to battered women." (29) It was not until the early 1980s that battered women's syndrome was seen as a valid defense, when "Francine Hughes, a battered woman who killed her abusive husband, was acquitted ... [by] plead[ing] temporary insanity." (30)

   2. Logistical and procedural obstacles in criminal court also prevented litigants from accessing justice.

      Victims who received little or no support from the police, prosecutors, and judges also found themselves stymied by the criminal court system and its inadequate treatment of domestic violence cases. Prior to 1994, victims were limited to pursuing a claim against their abuser either in family court or in criminal court "within 72 hours after an act of domestic violence." (31) Once a victim decided to pursue her case in family court, the abuser could be subject to an order of protection but would no longer be subject to criminal punishment for his actions, as the district attorney's office would be unable to prosecute the crime. (32) Victims, therefore, were forced to choose one legal recourse and forgo another at a time when they were most likely unprepared, uninformed, and in crisis. (33) "The process for civilians ... to initiate criminal complaints was [also so] convoluted, [it] discourage[d] all but the most determined litigants." (34) In New York City, the complaint process required complainants to go "back and forth between a ... summons part in lower Manhattan and the courts and police stations in their own boroughs," necessitating as many as ten different trips. (35) The court system put the onus of prosecution on the victim, instead of transferring the prosecutorial functions to the local district attorneys' offices. (36) As a result, victims of domestic violence were forced to proceed in criminal court on their own. (37) Furthermore, long delays and adjournments within...