I've done a lot of domestic violence cases in Los Angeles throughout many years of practicing criminal defense. The law has gone back and forth and changed in relation to whether or not prosecutors can get the statements of alleged victims in domestic violence cases.

The current legal landscape is significantly influenced by the People v. Crawford case. This case allows prosecutors to present a victim's statement if they can demonstrate that it was made at or near the time of the alleged incident. The statement, often a product of the victim's fear, is then memorialized and used as evidence.

Where I see them being able to use Crawford to get in a statement of an alleged victim that would normally be hearsay is, for example, if they have a 9-1-1 tape and the person is describing the beating that they allegedly took on the tape, crying and talking about it.

The prosecutors would usually use that if the person testified to corroborate their statement, but they could also use it in place of the person testifying.

I've actually had cases like that in Los Angeles County, where my client is charged with domestic violence. They can't get the reason there for whatever reason, and the judge permits them, pursuant to this People v. Crawford, to play the 9-1-1 tape.

Police Body Cam Video Evidence 

Another one that I'm seeing now is that a lot of the police officers in Los Angeles County in these domestic violence cases have body cam video evidence. So, they're approaching and speaking with the alleged victim. She has a cut over her eye. She's crying. She's all beat up, her hair messed up, and that statement is being memorialized on the body cam.

Then, when they come to trial and can't get that person into the courtroom, they use the body cam video, pursuant to the People v. Crawford case, to show the jury. See, look, here's her statement right here. Right at the time.

It's more effective for them if they could get her in there to testify, but on the flip side, it hurts the defense because the defendant can't cross-examine the witness now. How do you cross-examine body cam or 9-1-1 evidence? You can't do it. So, now you have to call your client in most of these cases because otherwise, how are you going to counter that individual's statement unless there are some other independent witnesses?

The People v. Crawford case presents significant challenges in domestic violence prosecutions. As a defense attorney, navigating these cases requires a deep understanding of the law and the evidence at hand.

When they put on the video evidence, or they put on the 9-1-1 tape, you have to think, the police also have the surrounding circumstances, so if the person says they got punched in the eye real hard, do they have a picture of the person's eye being beaten up? Is the house in disarray? What did the client say at the time? Were there any independent witnesses?

There's a whole array of different things that go into deciding whether or not your client is going to testify in a domestic violence case, and whether or not, when the prosecutor just puts on that 9-1-1 tape or just puts on that body cam video, is that enough to convict the client?

As a defense attorney, it's crucial to make informed decisions in domestic violence cases. Whether to rely solely on the state of the evidence presented, such as a body cam video or 9-1-1 tape, or to call your client, is a strategic choice that can significantly impact the case.

Real Case Example 

I even had a case where I was able to get a not-guilty verdict, but they put in the 9-1-1 tape, which sounded pretty convincing because the alleged victim was crying and screaming on the 9-1-1 tape.

Then we decided to call my client. He testified, and we still needed to figure out what the jury was going to do with that case, so we ended up going and tracking down the wife and calling the wife as a witness.

After the jury heard all the testimony, including the 9-1-1 call, the wife's testimony, my client's testimony, and the police officers' testimony, and examined the evidence, fortunately, they found my client not guilty. Still, you never know what a jury is going to do in a domestic violence case in Los Angeles County.

However, I know one thing they're going to do – if somebody makes a statement and they claim a bunch of stuff and they're the victim of domestic violence, they're going to look to see if the surrounding circumstances match up with what they say. In other words, if they claim they were punched in the face by a 220-pound man, if there's not an injury there, the prosecutors are going to have a problem with that case.

Because it has to match up with what the person is saying, if you want the jury to believe them, and of course, they're going to listen to the criminal defendant as well. The criminal defendant in a domestic violence case in Los Angeles is going to need to be credible. The bottom line is that they do not need the alleged victim in a domestic violence case to testify in Los Angeles, but it sure makes their case a lot easier to prove. 

Suppose you have a situation where the domestic violence victim is not testifying, and that person is charged with a crime. In that case, you have to look at the other surrounding evidence and make the decision of whether or not your client will testify and whether or not you want to put on any other evidence to challenge the prosecutor's evidence.