Domestic violence cases focus of statewide study

Kim Smith

Monday, March 27, 2000 | 11:16 a.m.

Not too long ago, a Clark County justice of the peace pro tem threw a domestic violence case out of court because of "insufficient evidence."

Days later the same case was taken to a grand jury. The same bloody photos were shown, the same butcher knife was presented and the same paramedics and officers testified. The grand jurors indicted the suspect on four felony charges, including attempted sexual assault with use of a deadly weapon, a charge punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The difference between the two proceedings? The judge apparently felt the victim needed to be willing to testify against her attacker. The jurors did not.

Abbi Silver, chief deputy district attorney, wonders what the judge would have done if the victim had died.

"Would we not have had a murder case?" Silver asked.

Silver hopes she will never have to go through such extremes again to prosecute a case.

Beginning in April and continuing for a year, eight specially trained court monitors will be traveling the state to observe how domestic violence cases are handled in courtrooms. After the year is up, a report, complete with recommendations, will be forwarded to the state attorney general's office and to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The project is sponsored by the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit group created in 1980. It is being funded with a $350,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Over the past decade Nevada and the federal government have changed many of the laws on domestic violence and now it's time to see if they are being followed, Susan Meuschke, executive director of the Nevada Network, said.

"We have some anecdotal information that seems to be indicating that there have been some problems implementing them," Meuschke said. "But we want to get a clear and documented picture of what's going on. We want to see if there's a problem, how big it is, how pervasive it is or if it's just localized in particular jurisdictions. We also want to see what's working."

Silver, who is a member of the program's advisory committee, said it's important to understand what this program is about and what it isn't about.

"It won't be the kind of project that denigrates judges or prosecutors," Silver said. "It's not to say, 'Judge So and So is doing terrible things.' It's really to show what is going on with the cases and to find out what we can do better."

Some judges and prosecutors simply aren't knowledgeable about the seriousness of domestic violence or the newer laws, Silver said. Last year 30 percent of the homicides in Clark County were the result of domestic violence.

Some judges and prosecutors today still have some of the same old ideas, Silver said.

"Everyone had the mindset that if the victim didn't show, then that was just one less case or if the victim showed up, but didn't want to go forward, then that was just one less case, too," Silver said. "But we still need to hold that person accountable for their actions, we need to get them counseling and the only way we can do that is if they're convicted."

What's frustrating to her, Silver said, is that there isn't a judge in the world who would consider dismissing a murder case because the victim wasn't around to testify -- or a prosecutor who wouldn't pursue a murder case because of the lack of a breathing victim.

A few judges also don't like giving maximum jail sentences, Silver said.

"I don't believe everyone deserves minimum sentences," Silver said. "The judges have six months to play with (on first and second offenses), and the punishment should fit the crime. We don't always see that.

"If a stranger did what some of these people are doing to these victims, the punishment would be much greater," Silver said.

On the other hand, there are plenty of judges who are following the letter of the law, setting appropriate bonds and giving appropriate sentences, Silver said.

"It's important to let the judges know they are doing a good job and the prosecutors, too," Silver said. "It's not just about getting convictions."

The monitors, who were chosen based on past experience in the judicial system and their understanding of domestic violence, will start out studying the protective order process in the various jurisdictions, then make their way through the Justice, Family and District courts, Meuschke said.

Three of the eight will be assigned to Clark County and the rest will be spread out among the rest of the counties.

Meuschke said the monitors will be armed with a pen and forms. They will have to answer questions about courthouse and courtroom security, the number of cases each judge is handling, the time each case is given, who testifies, if both parties are represented, the ultimate outcome of each case, whether the case is postponed and for how long.

"Continuances have been an issue in the past," Meuschke said. "If they are continued long enough, some victims will give up."

The protective order process is of particular interest, because some victims are made to feel as though they are at fault when judges issue mutual protective orders, Meuschke said.

How charges are being filed is also an issue, Meuschke said. There have been times when batterers have been charged and convicted of disorderly conduct, when if they had been convicted of domestic violence, they wouldn't be allowed to own a weapon.

Meuschke said she hopes the report is an eye opener for the public and officials, but stressed that the monitors are not "spying" on anyone.

"We're not coming into this with any preconceived ideas," Meuschke said. "We want to write a positive, proactive report."

Kim Smith covers courts for the Sun. She can be reached at (702) 259-2321 or (702) 455-4844 or by e-mail at kimberly@lasvegassun.com