Library

We are frequently asked whether communities should be testing anonymous kits,” and this training bulletin is dedicated to answering this question. However, before we can do that, we need to take the question apart and examine several problems with the way it is framed. we first explore problems with the terminology and concepts surrounding both “”anonymous”” and “”testing kits.”” (Originally distributed 10/2013)”

Prosecution expert Herb Tanner delves into the challenges that have been raised with the philosophy of Start by Believing (SBB), and other victim-centered and trauma-informed approaches. In particular, he addresses one specific manner of attack: Defense cross-examination aimed at exposing the law enforcement investigation of a sexual assault as biased. In his discussion, Mr. Tanner draws specific examples from a mock trial demonstration conducted at our 2017 International Conference on Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Systems Change. He explains how to respond to this type of cross-examination, “rehabilitate” a witness, and turn the defense’s own cross-examination to the prosecutor’s advantage, by describing how SBB works to reduce gender bias in the law enforcement investigation of sexual assault. Yet, there is also a broader point to keep in mind: Any attack on SBB is really an argument against the larger principle of victim-centered and trauma-informed practices. It is a condemnation of our efforts to prevent gender bias, by changing our response from one that is grounded in stereotypical assumptions and judgments about survivors, to one that is based on the neuroscience of trauma, and the realistic dynamics of sexual assault. Moreover, the arguments marshalled here, for responding to cross-examination, can be as powerful and persuasive outside the courtroom, as in it.

While the Start by Believing campaign has now been adopted by hundreds of communities, across the country and around the world, questions have been raised regarding its appropriateness for criminal justice agencies. Some have questioned whether participation in the campaign might compromise the ability of police and prosecutors to remain objective, potentially opening them up to attacks by defense counsel and/or losing cases at trial.

We all know that words matter, and this can be especially true when we are talking about sexual assault. In this training bulletin, we are sending out a document that was originally developed to provide guidance on language use for the authors and editors of Sexual Assault Report1, a publication that we co edited for five years. (We are currently in the process of editing our last issue and passing the torch of leadership to others.) Because this document is likely to be helpful to just about anyone working in this field, we have adapted it for this purpose. We believe these recommendations for language use can improve our verbal and written communications as professionals in the field, helping us to provide information in ways that maximize our accuracy and clarity – and to avoid common tendencies that can create confusion, perpetuate misinformation, and contribute to a climate of doubt and victim blame.

One of many questions addressed in our new Frequently Asked Questions section of the website is the following: Do I need to get a sworn statement from the victim at the conclusion of the interview? This question is asked from the perspective of a law enforcement investigator. We would like to take the opportunity to address this question in this Training Bulletin. (Originally distributed 12/2012)

When one thinks about the many dramatic moments in trial, the direct examination of the investigating officer (IO) is probably not the first thing that springs to mind. Little can match the emotional impact of a victim recounting the experience of a sexual assault on direct examination, and the cross-examination challenge to it.

This training bulletin was written to explore what the evidence produced from a trauma-informed interview of a sexual assault victim can (and cannot) accomplish within the US legal system, and how this evidence should (and should not) be used in a sexual assault investigation and prosecution. Various possibilities are illustrated with hypothetical courtroom exchanges. We hope this is helpful for investigators and prosecutors seeking to understand this field of knowledge and appropriately utilize these techniques. But first, some basics.

More than a year in development, this 38-page document provides basic information about the brain and explores the impact of trauma on behavior and memory. It then highlights the implications for law enforcement interviews conducted with victims of sexual assault and other traumatic crimes. The training bulletin was written by Dr. Chris Wilson, Dr. Kim Lonsway, and Sgt. Joanne Archambault (Ret.), with contributions by Dr. Jim Hopper. It was reviewed by experts from a variety of professional disciplines, including psychology, law enforcement, and prosecution. We hope you find it to be a useful resource, to enhance your understanding of these critical issues. With an understanding of how the brain responds to trauma, and an appreciation for how trauma affects memory encoding, storage and recall, we now have the potential to become truly “trauma informed” in our interviewing practices.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, law enforcement officers are using innovative tactics to connect with victims for investigations and to ensure they get the support they need. Ordinary activities, such as meeting for in-person interviews, can be complicated or even impossible right now. Survivors may be quarantined, they may be in another community or state and unable to travel, or they may be otherwise limited by “stay at home” restrictions. Some agencies, like New York State Police, are using virtual meeting software to interview victims, and they are including victim advocates in that process just like they would when scheduling a traditional interview. Although there are some concerns about the privacy and security of virtual meeting platforms, we believe the technology is worth exploring. Therefore, we outline several steps that can be taken to mitigate any risks that might compromise a survivor’s safety and well-being.

The 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) included many new provisions, but two focused specifically on the topic of forensic compliance. One clarified that victims cannot be required to pay any out-of-pocket costs to obtain a medical forensic exam. The second requires public outreach to ensure that community members know sexual assault victims can obtain a medical forensic exam free of charge and regardless of whether or not they participate in the criminal justice process. The deadline for compliance with these two new provisions is March 7th, 2016. In this bulletin, we offer more detailed information as well as resources you can use to ensure that your community is in compliance with these two new VAWA provisions.